It’s not a diet, it’s lifestyle activism
Lifestyle activism by guerilla mama medicine at flipflopping joy–edit! As of this writing, 642 of you have viewed this post today alone! wow! Do you know how many of you have clicked the previous link? Why, seventeen! I really recommend clicking it, you know, it’s pretty rocking stuff and also important to understanding this post.
What is the relationship between lifestyle activism, diets, and women?
i looked at my grape fanta. and i waited for that inevitable moment of revulsion and shame to overtake me as i realized what horrors i was contributing to with my thirty cents.
but instead i thought. whatever. it doesnt make a difference.
and i took another delicious sip of food coloring, carbonation, and hydrogenated corn syrup.
Did you know that if everyone flushed the toilet one less time a day…
Did you know that 30% of Americans are obese?
This reminds me of watching my aunts dieting, denying themselves food, giving each other, and me and my sisters, tips on how to stay fit and thin. And my mother. This Christmas, my aunt Cheryl made a special low-fat appetizer for my aunt Karen as a way to congratulate her for losing forty pounds, and as a way to respect her diet.
“I’m trying to be good,” they always say, middle class women going hungry–something lower-class men and women have always done–as a matter of morality. As a society, we’ve convinced ourselves that low-fat foods are more moral, and I think it’s the same way we’ve convinced ourselves that organic foods are more moral.
[bfp] I went through this long horrible stage of beating the shit out of myself for not being vegan. guilty guilty all the time guilty. trying every day.
Sound familiar?
I did the exact same thing as a self-loathing fat teenager. Everything I put in my mouth, I felt guilty about. Because eating this cookie and these french fries–every single thing I put in my mouth was the reason I was fat. And every single animal product bfp put in her mouth was the reason animals were dying. That grape fanta gmm drank was the reason people were dying.
Because when you say you can fix the problem by consuming the right things, by doing correct individual actions–you don’t have to think about real solutions. You don’t have to think about capitalism or the shit corporations put in our food. And you can look down on people who don’t live up to those individualist morals. You get to feel good about yourself for teaching your niece to say no to dessert, and not to waste water.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that so much of the responsibility, in both cases, lands on the shoulders of women. So much of it has to do with food.
Maybe it’s time for us as women to let go of guilt for not being vegan, for taking long showers, for leaving the water running, for all of it, just as we let go of guilt for what we eat.
Because not only does “every little bit” not necessarily help, the attitude that it does contributes to shaming women, and elevates middle class conservation to a morality that was never allowed the poor.
Consuming your way to environmental salvation: the feminism-acceptable diet talk.
Katherine said,
January 7, 2010 at 5:23 pm
I don’t know; as an ardent feminist and fat-acceptance um..subscriber to, but as someone who also spends a lot of time literally having panic attacks about global warming (wacky anxiety issues, I haz them) I am fairly ambivalent about this issue. I absolutely agree that it is shaming bullshit (and simply wrong) when people blame fat people for global warming and attribute moral value to consuming healthy foods (this makes particularly little sense from an environmental perspective since you can stay perfectly slim and ‘healthy’ on a diet that is actually pretty bad for the environment – lots of meat, faddish, flown-in ‘superfoods’ like acai and goji berries etc). Also, for lots of people it simply isn’t an option to consume ‘ethically’ because they are too money- or time- poor, or live in food deserts, or have disabilities that affect their capability to purchase and prepare foods. Obviously corporations and governments should shoulder the vast majority of the blame/responsibility for environmentally unsustainable and unethical practices as their reach extends so much farther, but I do also think that those people who *can* afford and are able to minimise their consumption of animal products and other environmentally costly and cruelly produced foods *should*, where possible. After all, there are many situations where we are unable to perform feminist/anti-racist/ anti-ableist teaspoonings for whatever reason (physical or financial risks to oneself etc), and such individual acts of resistance don’t bring down the kyriarchy on their own, but we nonetheless view acts of teaspooning, however tiny in the scale of things, as being positive and, in some circumstances, morally obligatory (in cases where someone from a privileged or unmarked group is privy to prejudiced remarks about members of a marked or othered group and can safely speak against them). I guess in some ways I view ‘ethical’ consumption similarly, as something one should do when possible but not beat oneself up about in cases where it is unattainable (according to one’s own feelings about what is and isn’t possible for oneself rather than any kind of sweepingly judgemental, externally imposed view).
However, as you can probably tell from my – rather garbled – remarks I am still working out my own thoughts on this issue, so this is not really a dissenting comment so much as a wishy-washily uncertain one.
Wench said,
January 8, 2010 at 11:49 am
Katherine, I think you’re getting to what some of my thoughts were as well.
I know, logically, that the odds of the long shower I took this morning being the straw that broke the metaphorical camel’s back which plunges the world into destruction are pretty low. I also know, that there is a small, but tangible difference in the amount of water and natural gas used when I take a short shower versus a long shower. But some days, that long shower helps me cope.
I also think that since I’m in a place of privilege, I have a responsibility to use that privilege to make it better for other people. That doesn’t mean I should feel guilty when I don’t, or feel guilty for having privilege in the first place. Or feel guilty about eating the cupcake, or having the long shower. It means that when I am capable of doing so, I should take actions that make the world a better place for all of us. It also means I’m not always capable of doing so – no one is – and that’s okay. It also means I don’t get to judge others for taking or not taking those actions.
I also think that what’s really going to make the change and make things better is a culture change – making it unacceptable for companies to put the things they do in our food and use the business practices they do. Making it a priority that everyone can eat. Etc. and so on.
Quix, I also think you’re right and that this sort of thing IS used as yet another tool to shame women. The whole notion of “good” or “bad” food is bullshit, as I know you know. And putting the fate of the world on anyone’s shoulders is AT LEAST as much bullshit. BLEAH.
tigtog said,
January 8, 2010 at 11:09 am
It’s the flip side of the “The Personal is Political” framing – it’s sadly too easy to get sidetracked into “Personal Politics is Political Enough”. I was in that headspace for a while, and it’s a comfortable place to be because those individualistic morality reasons you noted are an effective set of blinkers.
Without groups activising and agitating for progress in solidarity, with all the messy group dynamics that comes with that, we’ll always be stuck with the shit we’re currently wading through. We deserve better.
teresh said,
January 8, 2010 at 11:13 am
Because when you say you can fix the problem by consuming the right things, by doing correct individual actions–you don’t have to think about real solutions. You don’t have to think about capitalism or the shit corporations put in our food.
But thats exactly why a lot of people go veg and local, they have researched and thought very hard about whats in the food and the capilatist structure that exploits the workers and animals. I don;t think anyone thinks the problem is “fixed” once we give up animal products, obv animals are still being tortured and exploited on a grand scale. Its a matter of taking yourself out of that equation. I have lost that guilt now that I am vegan. “Now I can look at you in peace for I don’t eat you anymore” that quote pretty much sums it up for me.
Maybe it’s time for us as women to let go of guilt for not being vegan, for taking long showers, for leaving the water running, for all of it, just as we let go of guilt for what we eat
So America can consume even more of the world’s dwindling resources? This is the wrong direction to go in. Why is it bad to feel guilt about contributing to a huge problem? If we don’t feel the guilt how can we care about those we are effecting?
quixotess said,
January 8, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Well, (and I do appreciate your comment) it seems to me that you’re kind of illustrating one of the big problems for me. I see you saying that, because torturing and enslaving people and animals and fucking up the environment is wrong (agreed), people should feel guilty for eating meat (disagree), and becoming vegan is the way to alleviate that guilt (disagree.) My assertion is that trying to enact change on the end-consumer stage of things makes a negligible difference and is not a withdrawal from complicity in the torture of the environment. especially since it’s done as a capitalist method within a capitalist system.
For example, see what guerilla mama medicine says about organic foods in the post linked at the top of the page:
And what bfp says about veganism in the same thread:
You cannot consume your way out of complicity in capitalism. And it’s because of this that I think it does real harm to shame people, or to say it’s a good thing for them to feel guilt, for not consuming in the right ways.
viajera said,
January 8, 2010 at 10:34 pm
I have to quibble with a few points here. Overall I’m with you – to a point. I think there is a limit to what consumers can do – as in, both what they’re capable of and in the degree of effect they can have. I had a similar epiphany when, as a ultra-environmentalist in college, I realized that by the time we boycotted every company that had some environmentally- or socially-harmful practice, there were virtually no companies left from which we could purchase items necessary for survival.
BUT, that said, I do still think consumers CAN have an effect – when they band together, at least. For example, sales of hairspray, styrofoam containers, & etc. w/ CFCs went WAY down well before they were outlawed, and I suspect social pressure alone would have brought an end to these sales in many states even without governmental intervention. In fact, as a PNWer, I was shocked when I moved to the South and saw restaurants using styrofoam, as no restaurants in the PNW use even “environmentally friendlier” styrofoam due, primarily I would guess, to social pressure.
Furthermore, while I’m not doubting guerrilla mama’s experience, that has certainly not been *my* experience. I’ve spent >2 years living in Central America, and the VAST majority of farms that I’ve seen use HUGE amounts of fertilizers and pesticides (including noxious ones like DDT which are exported from the States, where they’re outlawed) – pesticides which then make their way to pristine forest reserves, likely contributing to the declines in many bird, mammal, and reptile populations. Due to the consistently warm temperatures and high diversity and abundance of insect and fungal pests in the tropics and sub-tropics, organic farming is *extremely* difficult and results in very low productivity due to frequent and intense outbreaks of pests. In fact, I have many hippie gringo friends now living in Costa Rica and Nicaragua who WANT their gardens to be organic, but simply can’t manage it – even on a small-scale – because the pests wipe out everything. The only way farmers, in my experience, can afford the lower productivity and output of organic farms is if they receive a higher per-item/pound price.
Furthermore, per the rule of ten (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_10_percent_rule_in_an_ecosystem) – one of the few rules in ecology that consistently holds – energy moving up the food chain decreases by 90% at each step; only 10% is transferred at each step. Thus each 1 lb. of beef (for example) has required an input of 10 pounds of vegetable product (not counting all the hormones, antibiotics, and etc. involved). So when you’re talking about the land occupied by dairies, pig or chicken farms, etc., you have to also consider the ~10x as much land that is used to produce the food to feed the animals. So stopping eating animals wouldn’t force us to “destroy new zones”. Instead, we would need 90% LESS land than is currently in use to feed all that meat we’re eating, freeing up agricultural land to feed a lot more people!
In sum, I think there should be a limit to the guilt people feel. But there is some scientific and on-the-ground rationale behind at least some of the points.
Glauke said,
January 8, 2010 at 11:20 am
Hey, it’s great you brought this up! I was thinking something similar recently.
(bit of background: I am Dutch, I was born and raised in Holland, I went vegetarian over climate reasons, switched to Ecover and vote GroenLinks, which loosely translates into GreenLeft. I earn rather well, so I can afford to buy organic. But I try not to preach -Goddess help me.)
Wubbo Ockels, the first Dutch astronaut started a campaign ‘Ladies first’ in which women are encouraged to green their man (men if you can manage). And though I agree with the notion that we need serious lifestyle changes, I was very, very upset that the obligation to actually make that happen was put squarely on the shoulders of women.
Another thing that really upset me is that we can now choose to buy slavery-free chocolate. Yes. The burden of eradicating slavery is not on employers, the government, and/or civil society, but on consumers.
I really really hate the vote-with-your-dollar/euro-thing.
And yet I participate. I went vegetarian, I try to buy organic, I buy slave-free, I buy eco-cotton. I just wish it wasn’t so much work figuring out how not to mess up the world.
quixotess said,
January 8, 2010 at 2:00 pm
“Another thing that really upset me is that we can now choose to buy slavery-free chocolate. Yes. The burden of eradicating slavery is not on employers, the government, and/or civil society, but on consumers.”
Exactly. And as far as I can tell, that choice will not have any impact on slavery whatsoever. The only effect is over here, with you–how you feel about yourself. And that’s fine, but don’t kid yourself that you can buy your way to free slaves.
anonymous said,
January 8, 2010 at 2:52 pm
I usually lurk, but I wanted to say that this is exactly what I’ve been thinking for a long time now. It’s ridiculous how fucked up the world is, and how we’re basically forced to buy into it unless we want to buy a plot of land somewhere far, far away and grow and make everything for ourselves. I do what I can to make sure I’m not buying anything that’s supporting some type of cruelty, but I always have a feeling that what I’m doing isn’t making a lick of a difference.
When I see slavery-free chocolate in my campus store, I always think the same thing you do. A lot of times, I end up buying Hershey’s anyway, because I honestly can’t afford to spend $5 for slavery-free chocolate. It’s ridiculous.
Anna said,
January 8, 2010 at 1:39 pm
This has given me much to think about. *thinks*
quixotess said,
January 10, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Let me know what you come up with .
Anne said,
January 8, 2010 at 1:50 pm
So the willingness of a vegetarian environmentalist to forgo the most cruel and destructive products of our society is just like an eating disorder? Um, no. Look, there is no reason to beat yourself up about what you eat, how you shower, or anything, really. But there are very good reasons to change your behavior if you are a meat-eating, lawn-watering, long-shower-taking SUV driver. Saying that doesn’t make me abusive, berating, or pro-anorexia.
It seems like you’re saying that the same emotional things that were going on with you when you were a body-hating teen are now going on with the earth-loving adults around you, and perhaps you yourself. That’s on them (and perhaps you), not on the environmentalist or vegetarian movements and the behaviors they encourage. It is every individual’s responsibility to own their own emotional baggage and take responsibility for self-defeating thoughts. Rebelling against your internal self-hater by engaging in environmentally destructive behaviors doesn’t strike me as the healthiest way out of self-hatred.
And I’m with you that the reason for animal cruelty in agriculture and environmental destruction is ultimately capitalism. But I’m not willing to wait for a socialist revolution to start doing something about the lives and habitats that are being destroyed by factory farming. And, like a lot of socialists ( example: http://socialistworker.org/2009/10/29/animal-oppression-and-capitalism ), I think there is merit to activism within the capitalist system, like the boycott of products that are cruel to animals and/or destructive to the environment.
And I’m with you that the reason for animal cruelty in agriculture and environmental destruction
Glauke said,
January 9, 2010 at 1:48 am
Also, this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/08/ethical-consumer-waste-shopping
Katelyn said,
January 10, 2010 at 5:40 am
I really appreciate what you have written here, but I don’t necessarily agree. Here’s the thing, people (individuals) can’t do much. And I don’t say that to be mean or disheartening, but I think Shakesville explains it the best. People can use teaspoons to empty the ocean, but that isn’t a ton (right?). And not everyone can give up everything (like capitalism, for example). I need a place to live and that means I need lights and that means I need heat and food and etc… I can’t divorce myself from capitalism (well, I could but I really don’t want to live outside and forage).
And because I can’t do more than I can do – teaspoon by teaspoon – I pick my battles. For example, I am a vegan and I think that is something important. I know that animals still die, but I can only work in teaspoons. I can’t empty the whole damn ocean. And I can donate money to organizations that I care about and I can volunteer my time to causes that matter. These are not huge acts and I won’t delude myself to believing that the world will change because of me. But that’s all people are capable of – teaspoons and sometimes tablespoons. I don’t think there is anything wrong with people doing the things that make them feel like they are making a difference. Because they might be making a difference even if it is a teaspoon of the ocean.
Your point about the burden being on women is totally accurate and I think very important. And I think the point about women being good – however, that might look, is a big problem and one I don’t know how to fix because I suffer from it too (recovering anorexic here). So if there is a solution to that, someone let me know
quixotess said,
January 10, 2010 at 10:03 am
I’ll just add another example from my own life–recycling.
Recycling where I lived as a kid (and where I live now, but I’m talking about a specific neighborhood) is handled by a company, to which you must pay a fee in order to have your recycling picked up. Sixish years ago, the recycling bins in our neighborhood were standardized so that the workers could go faster. Instead of sort of plastic box-like containers, they became one of those big bins on wheels, with a hinged lid, like four feet tall. (Not very accessible.) Anyway we were all issued those bins.
About three years ago, the company who does the recycling in our area changed. Now we get our recycling picked up by a different company. Upon completion of the switch, we were all issued new bins by the new company–they were exactly the same in shape, function, and dimensions, but they were a different color (light blue instead of dark blue) and they had the new company’s logo on it. It was important for us to have their logo, you see.
The old company’s bins and the new company’s bins were both made out of plastic. How much oil and waste do you suppose happened to issue huge plastic recycling bins to every house in the city? How much oil and waste do you suppose goes into processing recycling in the first place? Enough to offset the recycling?
You’re not emptying out the ocean teaspoon by teaspoon here. You’re picking up a teaspoon of water and flinging it back into the ocean, and some of you–the people this post is about–are pretty self-righteous to the people who don’t go through the motions you’ve convinced yourselves are doing good. Just ask any progressive who shops at Wal Mart.
Katherine said,
January 10, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Quixotess, I agree that now corporations have caught on to people’s growing awareness and concern about the environment a lot of ‘green washing’ goes on, i.e. that things that are sold to us as being environmentally friendly are just another, different way of consuming. I further agree that individual choice is no substitute for political action, and that it can be very seductive to just be a slacktivist and buy the ‘right’ brand of chocolate or washing powder or whatever to appease one’s sense of guilt. However, I really dislike it (and feel kind of hurt!) when judgement about practices on a societal or global level – like saying that producing and consuming a lot of meat is proven to be, on a large scale, unsustainable, cruel and contributory to world hunger – is equated to ‘self righteousness’ and judgement of other individuals, as though anyone who is a veg*n for environmental/ethical reasons must be a smugly judgemental person who can’t understand that their personal choices won’t singlehandedly turn back global warming, or that other people might have compelling reasons not to adopt such a lifestyle. And yes, any action we take alone is laughably tiny and ineffectual, whether it is voting or consuming differently or writing to politicians, and yes, in a few cases, as with your example of the recycling, the ‘green’ alternative isn’t necessarily as green as it’s made out to be (although I would dispute your implication that most environmental measures such as consuming less meat, imported goods etc are similarly unhelpful) . But I wonder whether it is helpful for people to feel as if *nothing* they do makes a difference. Of course we shouldn’t allow governments and companies to fob us off from seeking systemic change with the offer of shiny, new consumables, but is it really better to feel, as many people apparently do, completely disempowered and unable to make a difference on a smaller scale?
quixotess said,
January 10, 2010 at 3:19 pm
“judgement about practices on a societal or global level – like saying that producing and consuming a lot of meat is proven to be, on a large scale, unsustainable, cruel and contributory to world hunger – is equated to ’self righteousness’ and judgement of other individuals,”
But I’m not criticizing a discussion of global and societal practices. In fact, that’s exactly where I think the critique needs to be focused. My whole post is about shifting judgment and focus off of personal practices. Because I believe that that’s no better than diet talk. It’s like that quote, if you think feminism is about a good and a bad way to live your life, you’re building a religion. As it happens, some people do judge other individuals. I have had a progressive upper-middle class white feminist tell me to my face that not shopping at WalMart gives one the moral high ground. It’s people like her who the post is addressed to.
If you make your personal choice to be veg*n, I have no problem with that whatsoever. That’s not what the post is critiquing. My critique is the culture where practices such as veg*nism and recycling are held up as things that progressives should do, or things that save the earth, or indicators of moral worth, as I’m sure you know they are rather often. My mom, for instance, prides herself very much on recycling and often can be heard to say that we live “more like Europeans than Americans,” carbon-footprint-wise. She’s the one in the city with the bins I was talking about. In fact, choices as consumers about what to consume will never save the earth, and, as gmm says, every little bit doesn’t make a difference.
“but is it really better to feel, as many people apparently do, completely disempowered and unable to make a difference on a smaller scale?”
You can make a difference on a smaller scale. Just not by consuming. Not by recycling, not by being veg*n, not by eating organic food, not by eating slavery-free chocolate. Those are all individual choices. Difference on a smaller scale must be taken outside of the capitalist structure. My whole argument isn’t against individual choices. It’s against judging people who don’t make the “correct” progressive choice. It’s against the kind of talk, like diet talk, that constructs a morality out of personal consumer choices, which inevitably shames people who can’t or just don’t want to (why should they have to?) make those choices.
I like what gmm said about those consumer choices being a part of spiritual practice. There’s worth in spiritual practices. But some people can get awfully self-righteous about it.
That’s what the post is about. Simply, comparing consumer choices to diet talk to spiritual practices.
Meghan said,
January 10, 2010 at 6:06 pm
I’m a vegetarian for a variety of reasons, not just because I think animals have every bit as much life in them as humans (or “souls” or whatever you want to call it), but because I believe it is better for my health not to eat meat. When I ate meat I had chronic digestive problems from the time I was a little girl. Now my digestive system is relatively healthy and my weight is slowly leveling. I have been a vegetarian for a few years.
I still believe that vegetarianism is a better eating system than the undeniably cruel one in place in most American’s lives, but that’s my opinion, which we are all entitled to.
quixotess said,
January 10, 2010 at 6:47 pm
I totally appreciate and respect that, although your comment is rather off topic. I have no interest in criticizing veg*nism. I’m glad you’ve found a diet that works for you. : )
Meghan said,
January 10, 2010 at 6:12 pm
I forgot, also, I want to say that I think this post (and the one linked in the intro) makes a really good point — I’ve never really believed in putting all your proverbial activist eggs in the capitalism basket, if you get my weird metaphor. I think it’s much more effective to engage with people around you, because without that democracy becomes… I dunno, me-ocracy, or something.
It's not a diet, it's lifestyle activism « Reconcile | Today Headlines said,
January 11, 2010 at 9:13 pm
[...] the rest here: It's not a diet, it's lifestyle activism « Reconcile Share and [...]
It's not a diet, it's lifestyle activism « Reconcile | Costarica Today said,
January 11, 2010 at 9:29 pm
[...] Original post: It's not a diet, it's lifestyle activism « Reconcile [...]
canadaguy said,
January 12, 2010 at 10:17 am
First of all, lifestyle changes are great, but they will never solve the problem.
http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/10/voluntary-lifestyle-changes.html
As for not being vegan, you can stop feeling guilty right now. Please check out the book “The Vegetarian Myth” by Lierre Keith. She was a vegan for 20 years and now has permanent health problems. Vegetarianism is *not* better for the environment and is not good for our health. Agriculture has destroyed ecosystems across most of the planet, and caused a lot of extinction. We need to restore biodiversity, not plant more monocrops.
quixotess said,
January 12, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Hey canadaguy, I let your comment through, but I just want to say that it’s not appropriate to imply a causal connection between veganism and health problems without, like, mountains of evidence, or, failing that, some evidence and mountains of disclaimers.
canadaguy said,
January 12, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Hi quixotess, thanks for approving the post, and you have a perfectly valid point. The book does have those mountains of evidence and references many scientific studies. Also, note, my comments were not meant to be anti-vegan or anti-vegetarian. I am an environmentalist myself and I share many of the same concerns and values. I hope to publish a detailed review of the book in the near future.
I think the larger point, though, goes beyond health issues. Many vegetarians or vegans choose that lifestyle because they honestly want to have less of an impact on the environment, and they don’t want to see harm done to animals. I’m in complete agreement with that. The problem is that the agricultural methods vegetarians support kill a lot more animals, and cause a lot more extinction, than an omnivore diet ever could. I think this is fairly clear with just a bit of reflection. Look at all the forests completely wiped out to make room for monocrop agriculture, and all the species that are now gone forever. And look at the rivers that no longer exist because they were diverted for irrigation. Those ecosystems are gone forever (at least relative to human lifetimes.) Look at all the deserts in the world that used to be fertile land but were overexploited.
For more info from the author herself, you can watch a speech she gave on a recent book tour, which provides some more info.
http://blip.tv/file/3002698/