The V-word(s)

I

A few days ago, in a fit of moral honesty, I decided that it is ultimately hypocritical and lazy of me to openly view the global meat industry as ethically fucked up and yet still directly give it my monetary support. I started thinking: seriously, why should I not at least try adopting a vegan lifestyle? In the end I came up with a few reasons:

1) I live in a flat situation wherein food is largely communal, and I think it's unfair for one person in the group to expect everyone else to conform to their dietary restrictions. I have a flatmate who's allergic to bananas, and we still collectively buy those with her money. I can't reasonably request that we all stop buying meat, eggs and dairy with my contribution just because I personally have an ethical problem with it.

However, all going according to plan, next year I'll be living in a smaller flat with a smaller group, and we're considering the possibility of sharing only some of our food/meals and taking care of the rest individually. In that case, I don't think my hypothetical vegan diet would be too restrictive on the flat as a whole. I don't believe in policing anyone's eating habits, and I honestly could not give a fuck if everyone in my flat decides to eat steak every night with a side of bacon-wrapped sausages and fried chicken for dessert -- it's none of my business. Similarly it's no one else's business if I decide to live on tofu, lettuce and vitamin pills for the rest of my life.

2) It's expensive to maintain a healthy vegan diet. By cutting out two food groups, you limit yourself in terms of quick, easy and cheap options for working in protein, iron, calcium, vitamin D, vitamin B12 and a few other necessary aspects of a healthy diet. While it definitely is possible to make up for the lack of natural sources of these things, it adds up. I'm a tertiary student in New Zealand, which is the only group in the country that is expected to borrow money just to live. While I would love to be able to buy five or six litres of iron, calcium,  and vitamin B12 fortified soy milk every week, it's not financially viable.

3) I don't know how my body is going to react to suddenly being deprived of some of the only nutrition it gets. I can safely assume that any attempt to actually plan meals -- which I would need to do -- would automatically result in a much, much healthier diet than the one I have now. My current diet is the kind that causes people to express surprise that I'm not hideously sick and/or obese. However, there's no predicting individual reactions to a sudden lifestyle change; some people seem to be able to adjust without a hitch, and some end up with rickets and rotting teeth. As far as I can tell there's no way of telling beforehand which is which, even with the help of a dietitian (many of whom are simply stumped when the recommended supplements just aren't working for certain people).

The health problems that commonly occur in the vegan community are exactly that -- problems that occur in the vegan community, usually as a result of cutting dairy products from their diet rather than the no-meat aspect. Because of this, combined with my limited finances and sincere love of woolly clothes in winter, I'm taking a step back from my original proposal and considering vegetarianism as a more viable and healthy option.

II


In my internet-trawling for information, opinions, and various perspectives on the issue of animal cruelty and ways to mitigate it, I came across a number of unapologetically stupid and/or bizarre views.

You're either for or against killing animals for food. Choose one.


This strikes me as incredibly black-and-white, and is invariably the opinion of someone who sees the world in simplistic enough terms to have chosen a side on the matter and denied the existence of the fence entirely. I am neither for or against killing animals for food, because the matter is not that simple. I am against the massive waste of resources, the social and environmental impact of large-scale farming. I am not necessarily against the killing of animals for food. In some circumstances I have no issue with it. Some people find it abhorrent, and that's fine. Some people are happy to raise an animal in good mental and physical health and then take a knife to its throat themselves. I don't see that as abhorrent, I see it as one person taking responsibility for the way they choose to eat.

It is the suffering I object to; while it's true that a herbivore taken down by a carnivore in the wild could potentially suffer much more in its death than a factory-slaughtered animal, that doesn't justify a human causing unnecessarily suffering. If you're going to maintain that humans deserve the right to kill their meals because they are more intelligent, you must equally maintain that humans' intelligence makes them wholly responsible for the preventable suffering of their prey. In a 'civilized' society, suffering is unacceptable, period. It doesn't matter who or what is doing the suffering. If you keep an animal in overcrowded conditions or deny it medical attention or castrate it while it's conscious without painkillers or keep it in an enclosure that is proportionally far too small for it to happily spend its life in, then you are engaging in institutionalized barbarism. That I have a problem with.

Humans are herbivores.


This is just blatantly silly. Humans are obviously not herbivores by any stretch of the imagination and the 'evidence' these people like to offer to support their 'argument' is incredibly selective. Humans are omnivores, which means we achieve optimal health on a mixture of meat-based and plant-based diets. If you're going to try to back up your moral superiority complex with science, please ensure it actually is science, not a selection of disparate facts arranged so it seems as if there might be a correlation between them. At any rate, if you try to exist on an entirely plant-based diet with absolutely no human-developed supplements (not just pills but calcium fortified tofu, vitamin D fortified soy milk, etc), you will develop health problems. Because you aren't a herbivore. Clearly.

If killing animals is wrong, why is it not wrong to kill a tomato?


The imbeciles who ask this question in all seriousness have somehow managed to completely miss the most important aspect of this issue is not the death itself, it's the suffering. There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that a tomato plant suffers when a tomato is taken from it, or indeed that it is capable of suffering at all. There is endless evidence, intuitive and scientific, that animals can and do suffer due to farming. Say it with me: suffering is not acceptable. Ever.

You'll never completely stop animal cruelty anyway, so why not just give up?


This is called the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy', which is a logical fallacy that
a) assumes there is a perfect solution to the problem, and
b) concludes that because the proposed solution is not perfect, it is entirely without worth.

To anyone who has rejected defeatism as their overall approach to life, it seems obvious that the actions of individuals alone are not going to have a measurable impact on something as enormous as the meat industry; but it is equally obvious that the more individuals who refuse to support it, the less successful it will be. In this case vegetarianism has been steadily gaining momentum (and strict devotees) over the past few decades and shows no signs of stopping. It has become so common that it's almost unusual to find a Western restaurant that doesn't have at least one vegetarian option on the menu. That doesn't strike me as "no impact whatsoever".

Long story short: people are still stupid, world continues turning, I continue to regret knowing these things.

Ayn Rand: Pseudo-Intellectualism At Its Finest

"Man's rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment." - Ayn Rand.

Oh! Well, thank you for enlightening us! That makes a lot of sense, because classes don't exist and have absolutely no bearing on how someone's life turns out; there is no such thing as privilege whether it's in the form of race, gender or wealth, and if there is it's not primarily an inherited thing its recipients did nothing to earn one way or another. Right?

Because everyone is born equal with exactly the same opportunities for education and training. Right?

Because the wealthy and powerful are only wealthy and powerful because they're the smartest, hardest working and most talented people in society -- again, wealth and power are not primarily inherited or gifted things; they're only ever the result of mind-blowingly clever ideas and jaw-droppingly hard work, and therefore taxation is theft, and the use of public schooling is a drain on society. Right?

Because the poor and middle classes are only stuck at the bottom of the pyramid through their own despicable laziness and because they're just so damned average. Because all wages are sufficient to cover the costs of any necessary service if one simply budgets correctly. Because women are only treated as second-class citizens due to their insistence on acting inferior and submissive. Because every Westerner who isn't white chose to be subjugated, dismissed, abused and treated as foreign in their own country. Right?

Ayn Rand had absolutely no idea what she was waffling on about, and it shows: the people who subscribe to her views are either picking and choosing which parts of her views they like, or they're adolescents. As far as I can tell, most people are exposed to Rand -- usually in the form of her fiction, not her frankly ridiculous essays -- when they're quite young, say ages 12 - 22. Her ideas are extremely appealing at this age, because their black-and-white idealism suits the overly simiplistic world view most children have. Unsurprisingly, the overwhelming majority tend to follow a pattern of thinking Rand is brilliant and amazing, growing up a little, and realizing how redundant and short-sighted most of her ideas actually are. Amazingly, her ideas seem to be making a resurgence of late -- I can only assume this has something to do with the state of the economy, and the fact that Ayn Rand was a little like Oprah in the fact that she could sound extremely knowledgeable and right without actually having any idea what she was talking about.

That isn't to say there aren't parts of Rand's "philosophy" that I agree with. I can't disagree with her views on bodily autonomy: she was loudly and resolutely for the rights of all individuals to do whatever they like with their own bodies. I am, too, and there are plenty of other extremely intelligent people who share this conviction and who can actually back it up with sound reasoning, which I wouldn't depend on Rand for. Rand was also firmly against racism, as demonstrated here:

 "They (Native Americans) didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent."

Thank you for that absolutely sickening piece of colonialist propaganda. Even Disney managed a less racist take on thegenocide of those primitive animals who totally deserved it for trying to keep the poor little white man from spreading his wonderful civilization. 

"The worst evil that you can do, psychologically, is to laugh at yourself. That means spitting in your own face." 

Really? Come on, now we have to take ourselves seriously all the time? I seem to remember a period in my life when I found it extremely difficult to laugh at myself. Predictably, it was when I was a raging ego on legs, otherwise known as a 'teenager'. I suppose my hormone-fuelled teenage hubris should be reminiscent of the world view of a woman who wrote an essay entitled The Virtue of Selfishness -- I'm not making this up. Ayn Rand literally believed altruism is holding back humanity's progress. I am growing steadily more and more embarrassed for anyone who takes her seriously.

"Evil requires the sanction of the victim."

I find this quote intensely disturbing in the light of Rand's original model for her "ideal man", the fictional hero she sought to immortalise on paper; his characteristics are evident in the lead male characters of both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. These are some of Rand's notes on the heroic, perfect character she was inspired to write based on a man named William Edward Hickman: "[he] is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." (Journals, pp. 27, 21-22; emphasis hers.)

This model -- Rand's highest ideal, her pinnacle of human achievement -- was a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer. In December of 1927 he kidnapped a 12-year-old girl named Marian Parker. He proceeded to send her parents cruel, taunting ransom notes demanding the sum of $1500 for the girl's safe release. Her parents raised the money and delivered it to Hickman, who proceeded to dump Marian's corpse in front of her horrified father and flee. Her legs had been cut off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area.

Hickman was apprehended, despite his best attempts to hide (seems odd, considering Rand's vehement denouncement of "cowards"), tried for not only Marian Parker's murder but also an assortment of other murders, robberies and forgeries, and eventually he was sentenced to death. 

This man was Rand's basis for her literary hero. There is a word for the type of person she aspires to so ardently:sociopath. Although, as far as Rand was concerned, Hickman was the victim in all this; where he should have been praised for his "courage" in defying society's expectations, the degenerate, stupid mob had the gall to turn on him!

"The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...

"This is not just the case of a terrible crime. It is not the crime alone that has raised the fury of public hatred. It is the case of a daring challenge to society. It is the fact that a crime has been committed by one man, alone; that this man knew it was against all laws of humanity and intended that way; that he does not want to recognize it as a crime and that he feels superior to all. It is the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul."

Yes, Ayn. Clearly the problem everybody had with Hickman was his daring individuality. Not his brutal murder and dismemberment of a 12-year-old child. Clearly the real villain here is the public. You are so very, very switched on and clever. What a unique and special snowflake you are, Ayn, for seeing this man for who he really is: a beautiful, bold and romantic soul. Maybe you should spend the next 7 years writing a novel 

about these misunderstood virtues that only you are clever enough to see, you special snowflake, you.

In which I wonder if I'm the only person in the world who doesn't think sexual violence is hilarious.

I have had an exceedingly depressing hour or so of finding what appears to be an endless stream of Facebook pages dedicated to rape jokes.

- "The awkward moment went your misses wakes up and ya dicks in her arse"

- "Im not a rapist LOL jks get in the van"

- "The awkward moment when a slut is not DTF but you fuck her anyway"

- "Raping pregnant bitches and telling my friends I had a threesome"

- "Looking in the mirror and wondering how you haven't been raped yet"

- "Is raping a hooker classified as theft"

- "You know shes playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleyway"

Rape jokes are bullshit. I realize some people can find something entertaining and enjoyable about the real-life sexual assault of millions of their fellow human beings, and frankly I'd consider that a symptom of a worrying disconnect from reality. I am one of the unfortunate minority who
a) don't think it's funny, and
b) are not afraid to tell people that I don't think it's funny, and proceed to give them reasons why they should shut the fuck up.

It's not viewed as socially acceptable or 'polite' to call people out on their sickening attempts at humour, and apparently that's supposed to keep me from doing it, but I think that's piss-poor reasoning. I should stay silent and just accept it because...someone might feel perturbed by it if I speak up? Good. They should feel perturbed. Ideally they should feel incredibly embarrassed to be spouting this crap and passing it off as a joke. At any rate, keeping quiet is half the problem -- it's a lot easier to get away with hurting somebody if no one's willing to speak up and tell you you're wrong. And I don't really care if everyone in the group suddenly feels acutely uncomfortable and defensive. You know who's automatically going to feel uncomfortable over rape jokes? Rape survivors. The 1 in 4 women, 1 in 20 men -- and that's only the ones who report their assault. The numbers are higher than that in reality.

So you know a survivor, whether they've told you about it or not -- and if you've been running your mouth about how rape is funny, rape is a funny joke, they're probably not going to mention it to you because they can't trust you to take them seriously. And survivors don't get a choice about whether or not they've been sexually assaulted, but everyone has the choice of whether or not to make a crack about sexual assault.

You know it's in poor taste. And it's not the kind of 'poor taste' your grandmother complains about, when women wear red shoes on a date or something equally trivial and ridiculous. It's the kind of 'poor taste' that very literally and very directly communicates to everyone you're speaking to that you not only couldn't give a shit about rape survivors, you actively support rapists. You're saying that you think what they do is pretty okay, and honestly pretty funny.

I know that most of the time that isn't what you think you're saying, and I know for most people it sounds like you're making a joke ('haha, wouldn't it be funny if I really thought it was cool and normal to force people into sexual acts?' -- to which the correct answer is 'in what way would that be funny?'). There's one type of person who doesn't realize you're joking about that. That person is a rapist, and you don't know who they are. You don't know that you know them. They don't go around with flashing neon signs above their heads, but they exist in disgustingly high numbers in perfectly ordinary society, so I can tell you right now that you have met one. You probably hung out with one. Maybe multiple times. Maybe you thought he was kind of weird, maybe it never crossed your mind that he could ever be violent with anyone. Maybe you made a joke around him; it might've been about rape.

And there, right there, you've just told the rapist that you've hung out with at some point that his actions are normal. He already thinks that, this is statistical fact -- rapists believe that all men rape, it's just that some of them hide it better than others. What you've done when you make a naturalizing, lighthearted comment about rape is reassure him that it is normal, that you all do it too, and that you think it's okay. On top of that you've simultaneously told the rape survivor(s) you know that you're on the side of the person who assaulted them; that you don't believe their hurt is real or that it should be taken seriously. This could be your mother, your sister, your best friend.

Now tell me rape jokes don't hurt anybody.

Wherein I quibble about a few of the finer points of debate.

I do adore a good debate. I, like most people, openly love the sound of my own opinions; but I also appreciate the opportunity to express them in a setting that allows for them to be (intelligently and calmly) questioned, and I am quite open to hearing other people's views (so long as they are reasonably well thought out). I realize that not everyone can have the same opinions of every hot button topic, and you can argue politics until the cows come home but some people will just never see eye-to-eye, and plenty of women are exercising their right to not care whether they have rights. I have come to accept these facts, however grudgingly.

One thing I do insist on, if I'm to take someone's input with any level of seriousness, is that we are all clear on the definitions of the words and terms we're using.
For example, I find it bewilderingly difficult to find a person who understands what "privilege" is in a socio-economic context. Unless I feel like hauling out the chalkboard and teaching this poor imbecile from scratch what they should already know if they're displaying a willingness to engage in racial, gender-based or economic debate, I'm probably not going to bother paying any attention to their opinion. This isn't because I'm inherently arrogant (debatable; I won't deny it just yet); it's because their opinion is overwhelmingly likely to be uninformed and/or based on anecdotal evidence and/or based on prejudice and second-third-or-fourth-hand stories.

Rules of Any Decent Debate
1. Understand the vocabulary. If you want to argue whether or not there is a God, define 'God'.
2. If you know nothing or nearly nothing factual about the topic, don't start. Don't even say anything. Shut up and listen. You might learn something.
3. No anecdotal evidence. Ever. I don't care. If you utter a sentence during a serious discussion beginning with "My [insert relative/pet/friend/ex-boyfriend's name here]..." you are going straight to debating Hell and I will help you get there. It isn't relevant. Just because something happened to someone you know does not make it the norm. It doesn't mean anything at all, actually, so just don't bring it up. Good. Thanks.

These are all problems I tend to find in abundance on the internet. That's not to say they're not also tragically common in everyday (real) life, but the internet really manages to produce some doozies. If I had a dollar for every time I've come across a wildly creatively spelled missive denouncing one thing or another based on someone's auntie's personal experiences as a secretary, I'd be a very wealthy lady.

What's really caught my attention tonight when it comes to terrible arguments is the sheer number of people who dismiss concerns about underlying messages in anything aimed at children by saying, "But it's for children, so it's intended to entertain not indoctrinate". 
Intention is completely and utterly irrelevant. I'm sorry, but in cases of implied racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or xenophobia, it really doesn't matter even a tiny little bit whether the creator of the thing really intended those ideas to be embedded in the fibre of it. If someone can find any of those things, and reasonably justify their point using the source material, then I'm real sorry, but it's there. You can choose not to look at it if you like. Of course there are other ways of reading it. That doesn't mean that implied racism/sexism/ableism/homophobia/xenophobia isn't there anymore. It just means you'd prefer not to acknowledge it.

Another thing - indoctrination is most often not intentional. I don't understand where exactly this idea came from that 'indoctrination' means 'deliberate and malignant brainwashing', but it's complete nonsense and shows a poor grasp of the vocabulary. According to that fount of knowledge known as Wikipedia, "indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."

The only difference between indoctrination and socialization is that one has a negative connotation and the other has a positive connotation. It's all cultural learning, and it is never more significant and influential than it is in children's entertainment.

On Ellen Page.

So, supposedly Ellen Page has been 'outed' by an outraged blogger with unnamed sources. Question: has this always counted as a reliable way to find out about somebody's sexual orientation? I'm neither here nor there on the issue; it's bullshit to forcibly out somebody, and something about the inherent sideshow-ish nature of the claims makes me pretty uncomfortable. It's as if they've found out she's abnormal, dug up a dirty scandalous secret worth blogging about, which I'm sure is doing wonders to reassure those LGBT teens they're so worried for.

Plenty of people manage to live their lives without discussing their sexuality with people they don't know, and frankly I don't see why anyone should be made to do it if it doesn't appeal. If a prominent member of the community is gay and they want to talk about it in the press, make a statement about it and volunteer themselves as a positive representative, that's brilliant, but it's not something you can force someone into. It's intensely personal, and claiming anyone should bring their sexuality into their profession on the basis that it's a job that forces them into the public eye is ridiculous. Go find someone else to point the finger at, as if they were personally responsible for the bullying of LGBT youth. Maybe this time pick somebody who isn't a young LGBT person.

Alright. I've been neglectful.

The last time I wrote here, it was May. It is now late July, and while I would love nothing more than to claim to have been whisked away from blogging by some fascinating, adventurous and slightly dangerous diversion, I can't. I can't even claim something commonplace but legitimate, like study or a death in the family. Really I've just been terribly lazy. That's not to say I haven't found things to fill the time otherwise:

A Game of Thrones - both the TV series and, to a lesser extent, the books. That sounds wrong, doesn't it? Moving pictures before the written word. It probably is. I don't care. It's that good.

Fallout 3. I'm kind of working backwards with these games. I started out with New Vegas at the start of the year, and I've only just gotten my hands on Fallout 3, but it is most excellent. I've been playing it for three days or so, and they've been punctuated by nights filled with dreams of the Capital Wasteland. 

Series 6 of Doctor Who. Of course. I await the upcoming Hitler episode with pleasantly squirmy anticipation.

Sherlock. I knew before I even started watching this show that I was going to love it with the fiery passion of a thousand suns, and I was right. True, the whole 'quirky/rude but incredibly intelligent investigator' thing is a bit overdone these days - House and The Mentalist spring to mind - but let's face it, Sherlock was the original, and the modernity of this reboot does nothing to detract from his brilliance. 

It doesn't hurt that Martin Freeman is made of kittens, and Benedict Cumberbatch is tall, dark and well dressed - and that voice. Come to think of it, that name.

Dirty, dirty girls, indeed.

You probably now have the impression that I'm basically incapable of tearing myself away from the TV. And you might be right. But in my defence, there has been snow and illness to keep me indoors. Judge not lest ye be judged, and all that.

I regret nothing.

This is a fashion post.

I have decided that I am not allowed to buy another black or grey item of clothing (unless it's absolutely amazing and one of a kind and completely incomparable to anything I've ever seen before). I've also decided (and this was almost definitely influenced by my overwhelming love for everything Karen Gillan touches) that I can and will rock chequered shirts, red things, baggy tops, and ponchos.

I am now the proud owner of something that looks a little like this:

except it's having an identity crisis. It thinks it's a poncho. And that's fine by me. Unfortunately, it hasn't really brought me any closer to looking even vaguely like this:

but a girl can dream, right?

Also high on my fashion to-do list are shawls. Shawls! Shawls are a severely underrated item of clothing, as my recent adoration of Stevie Nicks has brought to my attention. I wore a shawl to my seventh form ball and I haven't touched one since, which is basically a travesty considering how often I long for something between a vest and a jacket that isn't a cardigan. Clearly I need a wardrobe full of beautiful, ethereal, cuddly shawls!

WITHOUT FLAWS.

People like to bitch about winter, and it has its downsides, don't get me wrong; but frankly I can't wait for an excuse to break out the wool and leather.