Non-vegan dinner party with feminists

[Kimberlily1983]

Okay... So I've been invited to a dinner party, hosted by the professor of my feminist theory class. She knows I'm vegan, and mentioned she's making a chili that I'll be able to eat, and I'm also planning on making vegan cheesecake squares and maybe a Caribbean rice with tofu "chicken", so I'm not at all worried about there being food I can eat.

Rather, I'm a bit nervous because since going vegan, my feelings about the injustice of animal exploitation have grown very strong. When I was vegetarian I was very casual about all of it; people would ask if I minded their eating meat in front of me and I couldn't understand why it would bother me. I can't make sense of it now... I guess I made the choice to go veggie and then always nominally thought of myself as someone who stood up for animals, even though it wasn't a real part of my life, my psychology, etc. It's strange.

In any case, now it bothers me to see people eating meat, etc. To hear them talking about how delicious their victims' flesh is... When I was visiting relatives out West, a couple of times I avoided being around them while they were eating. I can take it, but I don't like it. I'm willing to take it for this dinner party, but I'm worried about several things. If my veganism comes up as a topic of discussion, these seem to be my options:

(1) I can discuss my real feelings on the issue, and run the risk of offending people

or

(2) I can hold back more, and then feel miserable that I didn't say enough

I know nearly everyone would stress that if you're invited to someone's house, you should be polite, etc. Part of me sees the reason in that, that it would be mean to spoil people's fun, etc. And I honestly can't see myself doing that, not in that kind of setting, where I'm on my own essentially (no one to support me). But there's this big part of me that's waking up (is how I would put it) to the fact that keeping social interactions pleasant is way lower on the list of priorities than waking people up to the daily realities of farm animals' lives. I'm not sure if it will in fact play out this way, but I'm worried that I might have to choose between being polite and pleasant enough vs. upholding my moral principles and defending those who are oppressed. If it comes down to that - it might not - which will I choose? If I choose to not say something where I should, I'll leave depressed, disappointed in myself for not making the right choice. If I choose defending the oppressed, I don't know... Maybe it will be rewarding whether it goes well (positive response) or badly ("how dare you compare....?" etc.)? In my experience staying quiet just kills me; I'm the kind of person who has to stand up for what she believes in, and if I don't, I pay for it later, in guilt, in disempowerment, depression, etc.

*** Just thought I would add here that I have my own ideas about how I can best advocate the cause - a style I wish more people would take on, and I think more people are taking on - and that in my opinion it's not entirely to consist of "happy vegan" advocacy. I do believe in leading by example, and that's it good for people to see we're happy and adjusted people, etc., but I think it's also crucial for people to see that this does affect us emotionally, that we take it seriously enough to fight for it / about it, that it matters. See this conversation for more details if interested:

http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?27177-Veg*n&p=666141&highlight=#post666141

Will also add that I have class the day before (tomorrow, that is), and I think we're going to be reading our manifestos out loud. Mine is addressing the fact that feminists often talk about how it's crucial that we combat ALL oppression: not just sexism, but racism, classism, ageism, etc. Rarely is speciesism mentioned, and to me it's horrific to have these broad discussions about oppression that completely ignore that VAST majority of, and the most cruel, oppression that there is. So I will be addressing what happens to animals, the interconnections of human and animal rights, veganism, those sorts of things... So hopefully everyone will already know where I stand before Wednesday night.

But anyway, I just figured I'd start this thread, almost as a journal entry, to confess I'll be a bit nervous until this thing, as I'm rarely 100% comfortable in social settings, etc. I figured I'd also post this so people can offer up their opinions, too: what sorts of things do you guys do, say, etc. at non-vegan dinner parties, or with non-vegan friends in general? Have any of you figured out a way to balance adequately representing animal victims AND not spoiling a pleasant atmosphere? Any thoughts at all loosely related to these subjects is appreciated. :)

[Manzana]

I have been in similar (though not exaclty the same) situations as I often have to eat with clients.

I tend to be a little dismissive of the topic at the dinner table and in particular with people I do not know/ do not know me. The main reason is that if I state strong opinions that are in disagreement with theirs (and this is most likely going to be the case when they are having a steak in front of you...) they can and most likely will categorise you in the "nutter" box.

I find it helps if you come across as very balanced, tell them the truth but be a little bit cryptic and cut out any gore details, comparisons with emotional topics etc...

For example "why dont you eat meat?"
"I did quite a bit of reading of the topic and for me it was the logical conclusion as I don't feel very comfortable about some aspects of food production"

Then you are not lying or staying quiet, people can agree with your statement too and perhaps some people will ask you more later or go and do their own reading...

If they keep asking you, then tell them that you prefer not discussing this topic at the table... or depending on the reactions you might be able to push them a little further... it depends quite a lot on who you are talking to.

I have felt like a right hypocrite in a couple of occassions in the past and have decided that when they arise (and considering these are clients that I cannot upset), I might just get up, make my excuses and go to the loo... a little obvious but staying within the polite spectrum...that way I am not part of their conversation, I am not quiet and I can avoid feeling violent....

[Kimberlily1983]

Hmm. While that may be what works best for you, let me try to show you how that would feel for me.

~

I'm at a dinner party with a bunch of rapists. They become aware of and interested in the fact that I'm not a rapist, that I don't like the idea of raping someone.

"Why don't you rape people?", they ask.

"I did some reading about human psychology, and there are aspects of raping people that make me very uncomfortable."

Or I could say, "Well, I've read about the risks to human health involved. When you rape someone, you don't know their history, and you could be exposing yourself to STDs. I'd rather be STD-free." No doubt true, but is this the most relevant point about the wrongness of rape?

What if I say, "Well, rape isn't something I see as part of who I am, it doesn't coincide with my values about life. However, I do respect your choice to rape, if you think that's what's right for you. It's just not right for me."?

I wouldn't be lying, exactly, and people might be understanding, and they might go do some reading of their own afterward, yes. They might also just forget about the whole thing the minute I'm gone.

~

Any statement you can think of making, if it can be changed to be said about human exploitation and rights violations and suddenly sounds appalling, I don't like the idea of saying it about animal exploitation: it may be what people expect to hear, but it downplays the importance of the issue, and that is something I find unacceptable.

So you see the possible dilemmas that await me...

[Manzana]

If I said that I would be fired (and justifyably so given the current state of affairs and awareness of the human race)

Good luck with your meal nevertheless...

Ps. I am not sure how I would end up at a table with a bunch of rapists, if that is really an accurate comparison for how you feel about it, I guess you shouldn't go? (I certainly would not dine with a bunch of rapists)

I think most people are not animal exploiters because they are evil but because they are uninformed and in that respect being gentle with how you inform them and not allowing them to categorise you as a nutter in the process normally yields better results from my experience (and I have made 4 people vegan and 2 vegetarians in 4 years)

[Kimberlily1983]

If I said that I would be fired (and justifyably so given the current state of affairs and awareness of the human race)

Good luck with your meal nevertheless...

Ps. I am not sure how I would end up at a table with a bunch of rapists, with that is really an accurate comparison for how you feel about it, I guess you shouldn't go? (I certainly would not dine with a bunch of rapists)

I think most people are not animal exploiters because they are evil but because they are uninformed and in that respect being gentle with how you inform them and not allowing them to categorise you as a nutter in the process normally yields better results from my experience (and I have made 4 people vegan and 2 vegetarians in 4 years)

I agree with you that most people who engage in animal exploitation (especially as only consumers of the products) are not to be compared to rapists in terms of their psychology, etc. I agree, it's due to ignorance, denial, etc. as opposed to sadistic desires to harm others. And that's why I can sit down to dinner with such people in relative comfort, whereas if I managed to wind up at the rapists' or the child molesters' table, I would feel very, very uncomfortable. I would similarly feel more uncomfortable at a hunters' table than at an ordinary omnivore table; it's a matter of degree. So, yeah, there is an important difference between rapists and omnivores, of course.

But there's an important similarity that gets ignored, is my point, and that's that the suffering of the animals is comparable to - in fact, it's greater than - the suffering of rape victims. As someone who is aware of that immense suffering that goes on despite the ignorance and denial, if I don't do the utmost that I can to lift that ignorance, am I not responsible for allowing it go on? I know I can't make the choice for them, but I can decide whether I water down my own arguments or whether I make as strong a case as I can, at the expense of politeness if it comes down to it.

[Manzana]

The issue here is that a significant % of people that ask questions about veganism are not really interested in the answer tbh... they just want to see/test how "crazy and extreme" you are... and by going on about gore details, you often give them that pleasure and confirm that it is an extreme position for them.


It is just my view that "The right amount of information at the right stage of ethical awareness" is much more effective than the "shoving down their throats as many gore facts and comparisons at the dinner table so I dont feel like a hypocrite afterwards".

[harpy]

Hmm, in that situation I would think about what I were trying to achieve and how best to do it. I vaguely tend to hope that meeting me will influence some people to consider becoming vegan or at least reducing their use of animal products, and I feel that's more likely to happen with a not-too-confrontational approach which doesn't alienate them.

If people ask me over a meal why I'm vegan I tend to give a short factual answer and offer to discuss it more later if they're interested (if they did that might be the time to raise the rape analogy though personally I probably wouldn't). People tend to be defensive when they're eating and get into stupid arguments (even when they raised the subject themselves :rolleyes:). Mind you, I don't feel as uncomfortable as you about eating with omnivores for similar reasons to Manzana, though I don't exactly like it.

[Manzana]

Perhaps you can recommend that they read "the sexual politics of meat"? (though when I read it I found myself agreeing with her in many topics but found the whole structure of the book a real mess)...

[Gattona]

Hi,

is it that you are wanting to work out how to stay true to your own feelings of revulsion around people eating flesh yet not wanting to alienate the other guests? Like Harpy said, the first thing to do is to be clear about your own thoughts and needs.

Then work out some phrases in advance you can use that reflect your own feelings without attacking others. Lots of 'I' statements. And put in bits that recognise their feelings too . People who feel attacked tend to get defensive and bang goes the nice dinner party and any chance of getting them to listen.

My suggestions aren't very likely to be right for you - just some suggestions to start you off ... aah, the more I try to come up with a sentence the more impossible it seems. The suggestion of a short answer at the table and the offer of a longer discussion later is excellent.

Its hypocritical of me I know but the more disguised meat is the easier it is for me to eat in the company of omnis - there are some people I care for very much indeed but I'd much rather eat at an Indian restaurant with them than in a pub, or best of all I'd like to take them somewhere of my choosing but it doesn't always work out like that.

Manzana, 'Sexual Politics of Meat'? sounds interesting, I'll have a google.

[Kimberlily1983]

Yeah, it seems there are all kinds of different vegans: ones who genuinely believe it's a personal choice / that meat-eating might be right for some people, ones who think we all have a moral obligation to be vegan but will use terms like "personal choice" in connection to dietary choices, etc. (this sounds like where you fit in, Manzana? with your ideas about telling people what's right for their current level of awareness), and then there are people who tell it like it is regardless of the consequences and as a matter of principle, and then there are people who also do this as a matter of principle and because it's what they think will challenge people the most and convince them to make change (where I fit in).

Haha, was that all clear, or should I have numbered these, etc.? :D

If I'm right about where you stand, Manzana, our difference is not in beliefs but about tactics/strategy. We disagree about what will convince the most people, what will be most helpful. I think it's possible that some people are better at convincing people in one way, others are better at doing it another way; so it's not necessarily that one of us is right and the other wrong. Some people are social butterflies who can convince people by being charming and sympathetic, other people are better at being biting critics who get people to question something they've done their whole lives, etc. Some people can be politicians, know how to be diplomatic and compromise, whereas others find compromising on certain things impossible as a matter of principle, even if it's possible that compromise is necessary to improve the situation (always hard to prove, in the end, what will have the best consequences overall).

I think completely flying off the handle is an understandable response in AR activists, but at the same time, like you say, because most people would see you as a complete nut, it's a response that should definitely be checked. But I'm also worried about watering all of that down too much. I guess what I'm advocating is a middle position: seeming concerned, a little sadness or anger there, but while advocating one's cause calmly and making points rationally.

I've heard about, and briefly perused on Google books, 'The Sexual Politics of Meat', and had seen in reviews or something that the book is rather disorganized. Some said the argument does not make a coherent case; others said perhaps a coherent case could be made with the material in it. What I read did at times appear a bit confusing (not sure about certain connections she was making), but it does look like an interesting read! I might bring that up...

I've been reading the anthology Animals and Women, which is co-edited by the author of Sexual Politics of Meat, Carol J. Adams. I was thinking of seeing if the library has Greta Gaard's anthology Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature. My prof recommended Greta Gaard's work to me, apparently she's written on ecofeminism and veganism. :)

[twinkle]

You know, it really depends on what sort of people are going to be at the party, and what sort of party it's going to be. In general circumstances I'd agree with Harpy that people get very defensive if you tell them that what they're doing right that minute (eating meat) is repugnant in every way, and the more they hear the less goes in, they just end up convinced that they are talking to someone who they'll never agree with.

If your teacher has invited everyone round for a relaxing end-of-semester event then perhaps nobody will want to discuss anything serious, however if there are debates raging anyway because that's what the bunch of people is like then it's a different matter and it may be in the spirit of the party to say what you think.

If someone seems like they seriously want to know the answer to why I'm vegan while we're at a meal I give them the short version (I realised what I'd been eating had been an animal running around with it's own life, and that I didn't have to eat animals to live, later I realised it was hypocritical to be an ethical vegetarian and not vegan too), and if they are genuinely interested the conversation can flow from there in a not too heated manner. I get some satisfaction in explaining why we don't eat eggs and milk because it causes the death of male chicks and calves, as it's obviously never occurred to most people, and if they're logical it makes sense of veganism for them (if previously they thought it was just some weird fad). If someone has a problem with the idea though, I would try to suggest talking about it not over the dinner table because I don't want to spoil people's meals - that hopefully then makes them think about it themselves and what I might say that would spoil their appetite :) and also means that if I've misjudged them and they are genuinely interested they still know they can bring the subject up at a more appropriate time.

[Kimberlily1983]

If your teacher has invited everyone round for a relaxing end-of-semester event then perhaps nobody will want to discuss anything serious, however if there are debates raging anyway because that's what the bunch of people is like then it's a different matter and it may be in the spirit of the party to say what you think.

TBH, I have no idea what it will be... I'm guessing more of a relaxing event, but we do get in interesting discussions in class. I'm really not sure what to expect, though.

I think I mentioned earlier that I'd be reading my manifesto the day before (tomorrow, eek!), I think, so that means going into it everyone will know where I stand on the issues. They all know now that I'm vegan, but I'm not sure if they know it's about AR. With them all knowing where I stand, I wouldn't feel any need to get into the issues again over the dinner table. Hopefully it will be in their minds already, and they can do what they want with that...

But I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens...

[twinkle]

Sorry, I see you've made another post while I was writing mine the second time (I accidentally clicked the back button and lost the first post). When I was a lot younger, at school and only vegetarian at the time, I believed in the uncompromising position of stating exactly what was wrong with eating meat and would have long arguments with my friend, who vehemently disagreed with me at the time but a while later did go vegetarian herself based largely on what I'd said, but then she got swayed back again when she met a boyfriend who was a total meat-freak and convinced her she needed meat to be healthy. This was not a stupid girl either, but I wonder if because I browbeat her into thinking my way for a time she was just as easily brow-beaten the other way later on...? This may have absolutely no bearing on your life and say more about me, because it always seems like a betrayal to me when I think I've convinced someone and then they just slip back for some reason or another. The people who I've had less emotional discussions with and who have decided to change have tended to stick to the change.

[twinkle]

Ah, good luck with your manifesto. Is there a Q&A session after each person reads or are you expecting questions at the dinner table because people won't have had a chance to talk about it when you read it out?

[Back-Space]

I personally wouldn't start any conversations about being vegan, unless you've got better luck than I do :p It usually doesn't work out to well when I initiate the "discussion" :p Instead, I just keep my mouth shut and allow others to start. Then I just defend myself which I prefer much more :)

[Manzana]

Yeah, it seems there are all kinds of different vegans: ones who genuinely believe it's a personal choice / that meat-eating might be right for some people, ones who think we all have a moral obligation to be vegan but will use terms like "personal choice" in connection to dietary choices, etc. (this sounds like where you fit in, Manzana? with your ideas about telling people what's right for their current level of awareness)



I wouldn't say that is where i fit tbh. I dont think that eating meat is a personal choice or that is ok for some people but not others. I think eating other beings for pleasure is a dreadful way of infringing their rights and overlooking their interests...

That said, I don't see much point in people thinking that I am an extremist during a social situation where I can have an impact (perhaps) in how they perceive the world.




Some people are social butterflies who can convince people by being charming and sympathetic, other people are better at being biting critics who get people to question something they've done their whole lives, etc. Some people can be politicians, know how to be diplomatic and compromise, whereas others find compromising on certain things impossible as a matter of principle, even if it's possible that compromise is necessary to improve the situation (always hard to prove, in the end, what will have the best consequences overall).

I think completely flying off the handle is an understandable response in AR activists, but at the same time, like you say, because most people would see you as a complete nut, it's a response that should definitely be checked. But I'm also worried about watering all of that down too much. I guess what I'm advocating is a middle position: seeming concerned, a little sadness or anger there, but while advocating one's cause calmly and making points rationally.



That made me smile because I really am not the diplomatic type... most people that know me would laugh at the thought of me being diplomatic...
Maybe I have just learnt after having a few of these discussions over the years... or maybe I am jsut growing up :p

[Kimberlily1983]

Ah, good luck with your manifesto. Is there a Q&A session after each person reads or are you expecting questions at the dinner table because people won't have had a chance to talk about it when you read it out?

If we are reading the manifestos out loud tomorrow - which I'm uncertain about because we've had some scheduling issues with the prof needing to be away for a couple of classes, but I'm guessing we will be - then I'm guessing it will be followed by discussion (as it was initially supposed to be). :)


I personally wouldn't start any conversations about being vegan, unless you've got better luck than I do It usually doesn't work out to well when I initiate the "discussion" Instead, I just keep my mouth shut and allow others to start. Then I just defend myself which I prefer much more

As for the dinner party part, I think this will probably be my approach, too, unless a comment is made that I find particularly reprehensible. I don't think this will happen, but I suppose you never know.

I suppose you could see reading my manifesto in class as a way of starting a discussion, though! I hope that it gets people talking and thinking...


I wouldn't say that is where i fit tbh. I dont think that eating meat is a personal choice or that is ok for some people but not others. I think eating other beings for pleasure is a dreadful way of infringing their rights and overlooking their interests... That said, I don't see much point in people thinking that I am an extremist during a social situation where I can have an impact (perhaps) in how they perceive the world.

I think maybe what I meant just didn't come across right, then, because the way you describe yourself is about what I had in mind: you think it's wrong and have strong opinions on the subject, but you don't necessarily disclose the full extent of those opinions in conversations with people.


Maybe I have just learnt after having a few of these discussions over the years... or maybe I am jsut growing up

I'm hearing that a lot; that when we're baby vegans (which, yes, I am!), we're more radical and willing to get into people's faces, mainly because we're overwhelmed by what we've learned and the huge paradigm shift that's occurred in our lives. With time, we "become more mature", we "grow up": this translates to "we don't pick fights with meat-eaters anymore", "we take a more peaceful approach", etc. I find myself wondering if that's people becoming more mature, or getting tired of fighting so hard for something other people insist on not seeing, realizing, etc.?

[Manzana]

:) or maybe we just learn to pace ourselves and pick those fights that we can win and stop wasting energy in lost battles.

I "pick fights" with meat eaters when they are genuinely interested but I do tend to test the waters a lot more these days...

[Clueless Git]

If my veganism comes up as a topic of discussion, these seem to be my options:

(1) I can discuss my real feelings on the issue, and run the risk of offending people

or

(2) I can hold back more, and then feel miserable that I didn't say enough
And ..

(3) You can say something like "I can't go into my reasons unless everyone promises that if they hear something they do not want to hear they will not take offence"

Once you've said that then, if anyone persists in pursuing the matter, any discomfort caused by discussing 'non-cannibalism at a cannibals picnic' becomes their social faux-pas, not yours.

[leedsveg]

(3) You can say something like "I can't go into my reasons unless everyone promises that if they hear something they do not want to hear they will not take offence"

...and then once they all agree to that, that's when you can lay into them, telling them that they're worse than rapists, worse than paedophiles and you can be happy knowing that they're not gonna take offence...:D

lv

[vegandingo]

Simply say that feminists are against the exploitation of women and vegans are against the exploitation of animals. The simple logic of this should dull the blades of argument.

[harpy]

Simply say that feminists are against the exploitation of women and vegans are against the exploitation of animals. The simple logic of this should dull the blades of argument.

I managed to bring a conversation at a party to an abrupt close recently because an omnivore friend was going on about how wrong it was to privilege the interests of one's own children and ignore other children who are in need, and I agreed and added that it was equally wrong to privilege the interests of humans and ignore those of animals. She was completely silenced, not sure if it was by my idiocy, because she couldn't think of a counterargument or because she was surrounded by vegans and vegetarians and felt intimidated :D

[Manzana]

did she managed to say at that point (this is probably my favourite come back from omnivores):
"You do realise that humans and animals are different, right?"... No, that is why I walk around naked, grunt/bark/etc instead of talk and don't pay my taxes... :satisfied:... sigh...

[harpy]

No, she didn't say anything at all. I think she would probably recognise that the difference doesn't justify disregard for animals, in the same way that the difference between one's own children and other people's doesn't justify disregard for them. I suspect she is more in the camp that hopes that eating animals doesn't mean disregarding their interests....anyway I expect we will resume the conversation sometime so I may find out more!

[pat sommer]

...and then once they all agree to that, that's when you can lay into them, telling them that they're worse than rapists, worse than paedophiles and you can be happy knowing that they're not gonna take offence...:D

lv

Sounds familiar to me... Oh ya, on my list of when-I lost-all-credibility:faint_smilie:. also on that list: any comparison with human suffering