Are women’s and animal rights inextricably linked? Should feminists abstain from consuming meat and dairy products and if they don’t, does this make them hypocritical?

Feminists and vegans tend to elicit a similar response from the general public; a negative attitude, miscomprehension and incredulity. Sometimes they are ridiculed for being social escapists, trying to hide from “real” problems, i.e., poverty, war, scarcity of resources etc. The problem goes even deeper when both ideologies merge together. In this article I would like to examine two aspects of a feminist-vegan life – a moral issue and an economic one. As an avid dairy consumer and an occasional meat-eater who is unlikely to give up these eating habits in the near future, I am going to explain why I do not think that veganism should become part of the feminist struggle.

A moral obligation towards animals

Cow on the meadow
Cow on the meadow – “Anthropomorphizing animals is never a legitimate argument for their welfare” FreeImages.com/Andy Stafiniak

One of the arguments which is used frequently in feminist-vegan disputes is that the entire animal industry is built on the exploitation of the female reproductive system and that because of this, feminists should make animal rights their cause.

Equating a milk cow’s and a woman’s feelings of commodification and helplessness seem to be the principal idea here. Contrary to what dairy industry is telling us through advertising, cows are not happy to give us milk and do not enjoy their lives on farms. Quite often the term “rape” is used when speaking about artificial insemination and the ultimatum is declared – no feminist should consume milk because it’s contrary to feminism to turn someone into a commodity. However, what happens if we expand this argument beyond the animal industry, should feminists care about the welfare of female animals in the wild? Animals can be violent to one another and this includes cases of sexual aggression of males towards females. If a female animal’s sexual agency matters in farms, then it should follow that the safety of animals should matter in the wild as well. However, clearly we cannot intervene in the wild in this scenario. Obviously, protecting animals from “rape” would be considered a rude interference in the world of nature in this case.

This is only one example for the fact that, though it is difficult to deny that people do exploit animals, carrying human condition over to animals might not be the solid argument. In fact, anthropomorphizing animals is never a legitimate argument for an animal’s welfare, because it exploits our inclination to ascribe to them characteristics they might not have.

Another issue I find with making animal rights a feminist cause is the impossibility of animals representing themselves. Social movements grow from an experience of a hardship or struggle and generally grow through people’s awareness that they are experiencing the same oppression. However, fighting for recognition and for people’s own rights is inevitably different from fighting for animal welfare, as the oppressed group in this case has no voice. Fighting for animal rights, therefore, gives moral satisfaction but cannot be compared to the fight for feminism or human welfare in general.

Are you able to afford it?

Food inequality also comes into play when talking about the connections between veganism and feminism. For many people a good cut of meat is an indispensable part of a substantial meal; furthermore, it is considered to be a sign of prosperity. Better cuts of meat are more expensive and harder for low income families to afford, therefore a meat-containing diet signifies better nourishment and a higher social position. Promoting vegan values in societies where meat inequality exists is harder because one needs to contest the privileged position of meat in the food pyramid. Doing so however cannot be a feminist’s primary concern, who will rather focus on conditions of poverty and malnutrition – conditions which make meat a luxury.

spaghetti-1392266_1920
Vegan spaghetti – “Access to vegan eating options is geographically limited”

A vegetarian or vegan diet can be as nutritious and balanced as a diet containing animal products, but in the case of veganism, it is important to ensure that you are substituting enough protein to replace the meat and dairy. This can be costly, as some protein substitutes, such as nuts and dried fruits, are quite expensive. Access to vegan eating options is also geographically limited; if you do not live in a big city and your only shopping centre provides very little food suitable for vegans, it becomes more difficult to follow a vegan diet. There are of course other options, such as ordering ingredients online or through creating small but integrated vegan communities to provide support. However, this is time-consuming and demands a great deal of dedication, so not everyone can act like this. Demanding from feminists that they should go vegan therefore does not take into account the position of poor people who might simply not be in a position to do so.

Does eating autonomy exist?

One of the main feminist values is not to blame women (and people in general) for their private and personal choices. Thus, it is unclear to me how some vegans try to police eating preferences and scorn non-vegan feminists for their moral insensitivity. Neither feminism, nor human rights activism is about measuring other people’s involuntary involvement in cruel practices; some human rights activists for example do wear manufactured clothing from potentially exploitative factories. Demanding from fellow feminists to go vegan is to some extent similar to the pejorative treatment of “upper class feminism”, when problems white, educated, and employed women face are not considered that important in comparison with the suffering of women in traditional communities and some developing countries. A feminist should not be chastised for eating meat whilst focusing on feminist issues which are important to them.

The animal rights question depends on people’s goodwill and empathy towards animals, but I doubt that humanity will totally abstain from animal products in the foreseeable future. Taking into account that there are ongoing human rights violations not only in developing countries but also in Europe, I think that for most people these will outweigh animal rights considerations. Although campaigns aimed at promoting animal welfare are to be praised, equating animal rights and feminist activism does not quite fit. Whilst people who dedicate their lives to diminish animal suffering are to be respected, feminists who do not feel the moral urge to go vegan should not be shamed for their eating choices.[:or]Vai sieviešu un dzīvnieku tiesības ir nesaraujami saistītas? Vai feministēm būtu jāatturas no gaļas un piena produktu ēšanas, un, ja nē, vai tas padara viņas par liekulēm?

Feministēm un vegāniem klājas līdzīgi grūti attiecībās ar tā saucamiem parastajiem cilvēkiem. Bieži vien šajās attiecībās ir daudz negatīvas attieksmes, nesaprašanas un neuzticības. Dažkārt gan feministes, gan vegāni tiek izsmieti kā sociāli eskeipisti, kuri slēpjas no “īstām” problēmām: nabadzības, kara, resursu trūkuma utml. Ja divi skatījumi uz pasauli apvienojas, situācija saasinās. Šajā rakstā es gribētu izpētīt divus feminisma-vegānisma aspektus – morālo un ekonomisko. Kā cilvēks, kurš ikdienā lieto daudz piena produktu un reizēm arī gaļu, un kurš negrasās mainīt ēšanas paradumus tuvākajā nākotnē, es centīšos paskaidrot, kāpēc man nešķiet, ka vegānismam obligāti jākļūst par feminisma dienas kārtības daļu.

Morāla atbildība dzīvnieku priekšā

Cow on the meadow
Govs uz pļava – “Dzīvnieku antropomorfizācija nekad nav pietiekami pārliecinošs arguments viņu labklājībai” FreeImages.com/Andy Stafiniak

Viens no argumentiem, kas bieži tiek izmantots feministu-vegānu diskusijās, ir tas, ka visa dzīvnieku industrija ir balstīta uz sieviešu reproduktīvās sistēmas ekspluatāciju, un šī iemesla dēļ feministēm jāiekļauj dzīvnieku tiesības savā politiskajā programmā.

Šķiet, ka piena govs un sievietes objektivācija, bezspēcības sajūta, kas ir raksturīga gan sievietēm sabiedrībā, gan dzīvniekiem fermās, šeit ir pamatdoma. Pretēji tam, ko mums ar reklāmas palīdzību cenšas iestāstīt piena produktu industrija, govis nemaz nav laimīgas dot cilvēkiem savu pienu un nebauda dzīvi fermās. Ļoti bieži jēdziens “izvarošana” tiek lietots, lai runātu par govs mākslīgo apaugļošanu, un tam parasti seko ultimāts – feministes nedrīkst patērēt pienu, jo pārvērst dzīvu būtni par preci ir pretēji feministu uzskatiem un vērtībām. Tomēr kas notiks, ja šis arguments tiks paplašināts un attiecināts arī uz savvaļas dzīvniekiem? Dzīvnieki mēdz izturēties vardarbīgi cits pret citu, un reizēm šī vardarbība izpaužas arī kā seksuālā agresija pret mātīti. Ja sieviešu kārtas dzīvnieku seksuālajai rīcībspējai ir nozīme fermās, tai vajadzētu būt svarīgai arī dabā. Tomēr diez vai ir iespējams iejaukties savvaļas dzīvnieku attiecībās un aizsargāt mātītes no “izvarošanas”, jo tas tiks uzskatīts par rupju un nevajadzīgu iejaukšanos.

Tas ir tikai viens piemērs tam, ka, lai gan ir grūti noliegt to, ka cilvēki patiešām ekspluatē dzīvniekus, pārnest cilvēku sociālo situāciju uz dzīvniekiem nav pārliecinošs arguments. Patiesībā, dzīvnieku antropomorfizācija nekad nav pārliecinoša, jo izmanto cilvēku tieksmi rūpēties par būtnēm, kurām mēs piedevējam īpašības, kas mums šķiet simpātiskas vai līdzjūtību rosinošas.

Cita problēma feministu-vegānu attiecībās ir dzīvnieku nespēja reprezentēt pašiem sevi. Sociālās kustības var smelties pārliecību no personiskās pieredzes, no kopējās cīņas un kopējās apspiešanas apjēgšanas. Tomēr cīņa par atzīšanu un par cilvēku pašu tiesībām ir atšķirīga no cīņas par dzīvnieku labklājību, jo apspiestajai grupai nav savas balss. Tādējādi, cīņa par dzīvnieku tiesībām sniedz morālu gandarījumu, bet nevar akli tikt pielīdzināta feministu cīņai par cilvēku labklājību un vienlīdzību.

Vai tu vari to atļauties?

Gaļas patērēšanas jautājumā sava nozīme ir arī pārtikas nevienlīdzībai. Daudziem cilvēkiem liels un sulīgs gaļas gabals ir maltītes neatņemama daļa; turklāt gaļa tiek uzskatīta par labklājības simbolu, jo labākie gaļas gabali ir dārgāki un grūtāk pieejami trūcīgām ģimenēm. Tādējādi gaļu saturoša diēta nozīmē labāku uzturu un augstāku sociālo pozīciju. Vegānu vērtību sekmēšana sabiedrībā, kur pastāv gaļas nevienlīdzība, ir grūtāka, jo nākas apstrīdēt gaļas privileģēto pozīciju pārtikas piramīdā. Tomēr diez vai var secināt, ka tas ir feministu uzdevums, jo feministes drīzāk koncentrēsies uz nabadzības un nepietiekama uztura problēmām – tām, kas padara gaļu par luksusa patēriņa preci.

spaghetti-1392266_1920
Vegāns spageti – “Pieeja vegāniskajam ēdienam ir ģeogrāfiski ierobežota”

Veģetārā vai vegānu diēta, protams, var būt tikpat līdzsvarota un barojoša, kā diēta, kas satur dzīvnieku izcelsmes produktus, taču vegānisma gadījumā nepieciešams parūpēties par pietiekamu proteīna aizstāšanu. Tas var būt diezgan dārgi, jo daži proteīna aizstājēji, piemēram, rieksti un žāvētie augļi, nav lēti. Pieeja vegānu pārtikai ir arī ģeogrāfiski ierobežota. Ja cilvēks dzīvo mazpilsētā vai laukos un vienīgais tirdzniecības centrs nepiedāvā vai piedāvā ļoti maz vegāniem piemēroto pārtiku, varbūtība, ka cilvēks kļūs par vegānu, samazinās. Protams, ir citi izejas varianti, piemēram, pārtikas pasūtīšana internetā vai mazu, bet integrētu vegānu kopienu veidošana. Tomēr, tas ir laikietilpīgi un pieprasa zināmu piepūli un pārliecību, ko nevar prasīt no ikviena. Ēšanas paradumus nosaka ne tikai personīgā izvēle, bet arī cilvēka sociālie apstākļi, materiālā labklājība un iespējas sekot izvēlētajam ceļam.

Vai pastāv ēdiena autonomija?

Viena no galvenajām feministu vērtībām ir sieviešu (un kopumā cilvēku) brīvās gribas respektēšana un neiejaukšanās privātajās izvēlēs. Tādējādi, man nav skaidrs, kāpēc daži vegāni cenšas monitorēt citu cilvēku ēšanas paradumus un aizrādīt ne-vegānu feministēm viņu morālo nejutību. Nedz feminisms, nedz cilvēktiesību aktīvisms neuzstāda par savu mērķi izmērīt cilvēku netīšu iesaisti cietsirdīgās praksēs. Daži cilvēktiesību aktīvisti, piemēram, valkā drēbes, kas tika saražotas šūšanas fabrikās, potenciāli izmantojot bērnu vai ekonomisko vergu darbu. Pieprasīt no feministēm vegānisku ēšanu kaut kādā ziņā līdzinās nievājošai attieksmei pret “augstākās šķiras feminismu”, kad baltu, izglītoto un nodarbināto sieviešu problēmas tiek uzskatītas par mazāk svarīgām salīdzinājumā ar ciešanām, ar kurām saskaras sievietes tradicionālajās kopienās un atsevišķās attīstošās valstīs. Feministe, kura koncentrējas uz sev tuvākām feministu tēmām, nav pelnījusi rājienu un nicinājumu, tāpat kā feministe, kura neuzskata par nepieciešamu kļūt par vegānu.

Dzīvnieku tiesību jautājums ir atkarīgs no cilvēku labās gribas un empātijas pret dzīvniekiem, taču es šaubos, ka pašlaik un pārskatāmā nākotnē ir iespējams pilnībā atturēties no dzīvnieku izcelsmes produktu patēriņa. Ņemot vērā, ka visā pasaulē, tostarp, arī Eiropā, vēl joprojām netiek respektētas cilvēktiesības, tas, pēc manām domām, būs prioritāte lielākam cilvēku skaitam, nekā dzīvnieku labklājība. Kamēr cilvēki, kuri velta dzīvi tam, lai atvieglotu dzīvnieku ciešanas, ir uzslavas vērti, feministes, kuras neizjūt morālo vēlmi kļūt par vegāniem, nav jāstrostē par viņu ēšanas izvēlēm.

Please follow and like us:
0
Marija Assereckova
maria.asseretskova@gmail.com
Marija holds an MA in philosophy and has been working as an oral history researcher. Grown up in post-Soviet Latvia, she is currently living in Latvia and Spain. Marija is particularly interested in intersectional feminism, Marxist feminism, and East European socio-historical issues.

5 thoughts on “Confessions of a meat eating feminist – Feministes gaļēdājas atzīšanās [EN/LV]”

  1. Let’s use a little bit of imagination here:

    “However, clearly we cannot intervene in the wild in this scenario. Obviously, protecting women from “rape” would be considered a rude interference in the world of nature in this case. [–] Another issue I find with making women’s rights a human rights cause is the impossibility of women representing themselves. Social movements grow from an experience of a hardship or struggle and generally grow through people’s awareness that they are experiencing the same oppression. However, fighting for recognition and for men’s own rights is inevitably different from fighting for woman welfare, as the oppressed group in this case has no voice. Fighting for women’s rights, therefore, gives moral satisfaction but cannot be compared to the fight for human rights in general.”

    Does it sound brutal to you? That’s how people used to think just a few hundred years ago. Women were considered inferior beings, creations deemed lesser than men by nature that were nothing more than the property of their fathers or husbands. The Ancient Greek created democracy, while they believed that women, unlike men, have no soul. Women spoke the same language as men, yet men refused to hear their voice.

    One day the way we treat animals will be seem as absurd as the way women were considered inferior to men seems to modern people. Animals do have a voice: go to any slaughter house and you will hear it. I’ts a voice that signals pain, refusal, disagreement, but people are refusing to hear it.

    1. Well, I find it difficult to express solidarity with the assumption that animal rights are inextricably linked with women’s rights and that veganism can actually be derived from feminism as the only logical consequence of the latter. The very fact that during the course of history many women did not comply with the inferior position and spoke out, distinguishes women’s condition from that of animals. Unfortunately, animals can’t articulate their stance on any question and it is up to humans to decide whether animals indeed “express” disagreement with anything. It seems to me that levelling women and animals makes feminism far too shallow. Animals indeed were always property and considered to be inferior; many women, on the other hand, were simultaneously property of their fathers and husbands, and members of the ruling class; in different eras women were able to exercise economic and sometimes even political power to some extent. The history of animals is significantly different. However, nowhere in this article did I claim that animals do not suffer and that their suffering should not be taken into consideration. It is just that I do not think that animal rights are an essential feminist issue.

      Speaking about voices in the slaughter houses. Naturally, any living creature does not want to suffer and to endure physical pain, that we know for sure. Thus, for me the main problem with industrial farming is with animals suffering and living in miserable conditions (battery hens provide the vivid example). Finding a solution to this problem by creating smaller farms and drastically reducing the number of animals killed for consumption, would solve it. As terrible as it may sound for a commited vegan, for me killing an animal is not an act of intolerable violence as long as it is 100% painless and immediate and an animal did not spend its life in a small cage or stall.

  2. There are so much misinformation here that I’m not sure where to begin. I will try to stay as polite as I can, because I do believe you meant no harm – but you are repeating arguments that are actually harmful, maybe without even realizing it.

    First, you compare wild animals to domesticated animals. This is the same as to say, “the lion eats the gazelle and it’s in its nature, therefore I’m allowed to eat animals that have been slaughtered because it is in my nature”.
    Why compare animals that were born for human interests, suffer for human interests, are raped (you write it yourself) for human interests, milked for human interests, and eventually slaughtered for human interests – to wild animals doing what wild animals are supposed to do, and on which we don’t have any power? You’re comparing a business that is completely created and handled by humans, to something humans have no power on. Can you see why this comparison doesn’t make any sense? You’re justifying the unnecessary suffering of 56 billions animals (that’s the number of animals slaughtered each year for the food industry) by saying that suffering already exists in nature.

    You then speak of anthropomorphism – and I agree, humanizing animals is a very dangerous thing when advocating for animals rights. However, it is also wrong to consider animals as machines. Different scientists and psychologists (such as Darwin who wrote The expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals) say that animals and humans share a range of emotions (sadness, joy, fear, disgust, anger) that have cognitives functions: fear triggers running away, for example – to run away from a predator.
    Therefore, you can’t say that assuming cows suffer when you take their veal away is anthropomorphism. Even though you do, at least you can’t say that they don’t physicially suffer from being repeatedly impregnated and repeatedly giving birth.

    For the “animals have no voice” thing, I don’t understand how it’s an argument against veganism. Isn’t feminism all about giving a voice to those who have been denied it? You speak of moral satisfaction – it is dangerous to say that anything someone does for someone else is self-centered, because it gives you satisfaction. What about the animals? Do you think vegans, and vegan feminists, are vegan just so they’re satisfied of themselves? This is very weird to think. Moreover, does that mean that we can fight for a cause only if we’re victims of the injustice we’re fighting against? What about all the animals suffering for meat and animal products – don’t you think they would be the first one to beneficiate from a society that doesn’t exploit them?

    There comes the idea of the price and stuff, which clearly shows you conducted absolutely no research before writing this text.
    Where do we get our proteins? Protein deficiency is very rare in vegans. 11 to 15% of your daily intakes should be proteins – great! Because it’s very easy to find protein in the cheapest foods ever/
    Oats: 16,89grams of proteins per 100gr
    Chickpeas: 19,30grams of proteins per 100gr
    Lentils: 25,38grams of proteins per 100gr
    Peanuts: 25,80grams of proteins per 100gr
    For the record: fish contains 20gr of proteins per 100gr serving, chicken, 29gr.
    It is literally impossible to be protein deficient while being vegan, and you can get your proteins from the very affordable and accessible foods I’ve listed.

    Finally, it is true to say that someone, feminist or not, should never blame someone else for their personal choice.
    But can we sincerely say it’s a personal choice when it involves the death of 56 billions animals each year? Everyone should try to lower the suffering that their actions cause – eating animal products directly causes suffering.

    Not to say the ridiculous amount of clean water used each day for cattle, while people don’t even have access to clean water in several areas of the world. The production of animal products is responsible for 18% of human-caused greenhouse gases – more than transports in the entire world, which is 14% – those numbers come from the US Environmental Protection Agency website.

    So, my advice would be: do your research.

    1. First of all, I would like to remind you that nowhere in this article do I make any arguments against veganism. I do not meddle in other people’s eating choices and the reason of writing this article was not to prove that veganism is unreasoned and empty theory, but to ponder on the question whether veganism should be an indispensable part of feminist struggle. My conclusion was that fighting for animal rights, as noble as it is, should not be integrated with feminism.

      I guess, we will never reach an agreement on this question, because, as I have already pointed out in another comment, for me killing an animal is not an act of intolerable violence as long as it is 100% painless and immediate and an animal did not spend its life in a small cage or stall. Thus, as terrible as it may sound for a commited vegan, it is suffering and miserable living conditions, not the killing itself, which bothers me in industrial farming. Working on improving living conditions, banning some practices, reducing the number of animals killed, the amount of water used and the gas emitted, would solve the problem for me. I understand that for those who find killing animals for human consumption unethical, this would only be a superficial and insufficient solution. However, I really doubt that these issues set agenda for feminists.

      Once again, I’d like to point out that I would never go to vegan websites trying to persuade them to abandon their principles. Actually, I tend to think that sometime in the future (though not very soon) veganism will be much more accepted and it that might win over meat eaters. However, as this a feminist, not an animal rights platform, I found it interesting to write about relationships between two ideologies, which, as I tried to prove, are from from idyllic alliance. There are feminists who are vegans and there are feminists who are not and are unlikely to become ones. In my opinion, veganism should not be a stumbling block which prevents us from working together on women’s rights issues and achieving better social conditions for women.

  3. I would posit that every compassionate and progressive “ism” movement requires a necessary relationship to veganism: Humanism, Feminism, Equalism…any forward-thinking Activ-ism. The dilemma with the notion that one does not inherently object to the killing of animals for consumption of their bodies or eggs as long as it is 100% painless, 100% humane and so forth is that it does not EXIST. It is brutal, barbaric, unnecessary and only wishful thinking that it is/could be otherwise.

    I could likewise turn this justification on its head and declare that I personally do not decry chauvinism and rape of women IF it could be done 100% without pain and IF they are from another country that doesn’t speak my language; therefore I don’t understand the voice they are using or the attempts they are making to defend themselves, even though I would agree that they naturally are using that voice to object to pain. In fact; this arguments suggests a further point: that because I support the theoretical idea of humane rape, I have no problem justifying my personal support of it in modern practice because I truly believe it could be, should be humane one day and that is something I support and am not likely to stop supporting it anytime soon.

    This is an industry that practices forced pregnancy, the denial of life to be carried out in a natural process, mothers denied their babies; babies denied their mothers; babies being ground up alive; life being perceived as inherently worthless and inferior.

    It is not hard for a vegan feminist to draw this connection. It is, in fact, what drives vegan feminists to seek out websites likes these to wonder at the mindset of anyone who rallies behind one set of liberation activism while denying another; while JUSTIFYING another.

    The tag words read as such: slavery, rape, abuse, torture, female oppression, confinement, pain, suffering, abuse, fear, cruel death.

    The commonality is that feminism seeks to end those atrocities and veganism seeks to end those atrocities.

    Pro-Life…Pro-Choice…Vegans are both.

    If there are vegans thriving globally, then protein deficiency is not a justification. Kwashiorkor (protein deficiency) is a problem in countries of perpetual famine; not in 1st World and developing nations. Kwashiorkor is not associated with Vegans. http://www.healthline.com/health/kwashiorkor#Overview1

    If there are carnivores in the wild and there are also omnivores, herbivores, and frugivores in the wild, then the human bias to continue the barbaric practice of industry slaughter is not a justification. It is one of taste preference, communal eating rituals and associations with our memories of warming home-cooked meals. That taste preference has to be elaborately dressed with seasonings and cooked beyond recognition and ultimately renamed. This is the sexual politics of meat-eating.
    http://caroljadams.com/spom-the-book/

    Perhaps one of the reasons that feminism is starting to be linked with veganism is because vegan feminists are speaking up from within the feminist community. Helping draw the connections. Helping expose the cruelty and remind powerful and courageous women’s rights activists that this IS a global women’s issue. That indeed this is EVERYONE’S issue.

    Veganism is on the rise. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/27/the-rise-of-vegan-teenagers-more-people-are-into-it-because-of-instagram

    Kids and teens have less programming, more altruism and higher and growing numbers of awareness. They are ditching the dead animals on their plates. They are helping revolutionize compassion with the simplest acts: changing their menu and spreading the word on social media.

    They’re doing it, and they are our future. We’ve run out of excuses.

    Compassion softens everyone. Do we not want compassionate women and men working together? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAGKhNhMsEU

    Mothers having their babies ripped from them is a feminist issue:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRywQqDP38g

    Fighting for the rights of mothers is a feminist issue:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H5pQvDlp8Y

    It is my biggest wish that anyone reading this would read my points and consider them thoroughly and with an open mind and open heart. That you watch the videos and read the links. That you watch other videos about the meat and dairy industry.

    That instead of me saying “Go Vegan today,” you arrive at your own conclusions about what compassion truly means and to decide for yourself if eating the bodies and eggs of tortured animals and their babies is an act of compassion or one of cruelty.

    Compassion is for everyone. Kindness is for everyone. Equality is for everyone. My dear sisters, the goals of feminism and veganism have everything to do with each other.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.