antidisestablishmentarianjism

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

The absolute irony of calling vegans “elitist” while simultaneously believing yourself to be so important that your taste preferences alone justify the exploitation and slaughter of thousands of other sentient beings.

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

Raising animals for food produces more greenhouse gas emissions than all of the cars, planes, and other forms of transportation combined. 

-Mercy for animals

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

Muslim community: this wasn’t an act of religion, it was homophobia LGBT+ community: this wasn’t an act of religion, it was homophobia Shooter’s parents: this wasn’t an act of religion, it was homophobia Media: muslims are to blame isis is coming for us

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

“Poor people can’t go vegan.”

This is perhaps the most common argument against veganism, and is used both as a reason for an individual not to go vegan and as an argument against veganism itself. It is thought by many that veganism is inherently expensive and vegans are frequently accused of being classist if they expect others to go vegan as well. Aside from the fact that the existence of poor people who cannot go vegan is not an effective argument against veganism itself, just as the existence of poor people who cannot afford meat is not an argument against an omnivorous diet, there are several other flaws with this logic.

Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. Most people in poverty throughout the world subsist on a  primarily vegetarian diet, and across the Chinese-Japanese, Australian, Hindustani, Central Asian, Near Eastern, Mediterranean, European-Siberian, South American,  North American, Central American and Mexican regions, every single staple food is vegan; staple being defined as a food that is eaten regularly and in such quantities as to constitute the dominant part of a person’s diet and supply a major proportion of their energy and nutrient needs. This is because, despite popular opinion to the contrary, meat is a luxury. The only reason it is not seen as a luxury in the western world is because we heavily subsidise it with taxpayer’s money. A full 63% of all food subsidies go to meat and dairy, compared to <1% towards fruits and vegetables. 62% of your average American farmer’s earnings come from the United States government,  meaning people pay for less than half of the real terms cost of their meat. If full ecological costs -including fossil fuel use, groundwater depletion and agricultural-chemical pollution were factored in the price of meat would double or triple. The rest is paid for in tax dollars, and this is the case in most western countries. It is the very definition of privilege to expect someone else to pick up the tab for your meal. 

Poverty must also be viewed at a regional and global level rather than just at an individual one. 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That’s about one in nine people on earth. Meanwhile, most of the crops we raise goes straight to farmed animals, not humans. It takes 16 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. That’s 94% more land. And 94% more pesticides. All told, livestock eat 70% of all the grain we produce. Farmed animals consume significantly more calories to get them to slaughter weight than they will ever produce in meat, meaning that they are literally detracting from the global food supply. If the world went vegan, we would add an addition 70% to the world’s global food supply, enough to comfortably feed everyone if it were equally distributed. Even considering the fact that global market forces and capitalism means that distribution would never be equal, 70% more food in the world means significantly less people hungry.

It is not that people are lying when they claim veganism is expensive, it is often simply due to never having been explosed to what an average plant based diet looks like. Most vegan staples, including pastas, rice, noodles, quinoa, lentils, chickpeas, frozen fruits and canned vegetables represent some of the cheapest and most nutritious food sources in any supermarket and they are widely available. This makes perfect sense economically because the lower on the food chain you eat, the less work has gone into the final product and thus the cheaper it is. The claim that poor people cannot go vegan is not only untrue, it is invalidating and erasing the struggles of poor vegans the world over. There are disabled vegans, vegans on benefits, vegans on food stamps, homeless vegans, student vegans, vegans living with their parents and vegans living hand to mouth all over the world. On every post claiming that poor people cannot go vegan, you will find dozens of comments from poor vegans telling you that they exist. 

This is not to say that there are not situations where an individual may not be able to go vegan at this particular time in their lives, either because of their financial and living situation or their location, but it does mean that veganism is not inherently any more expensive than an omnivorous diet is. An individual poor person may not be able to go vegan, but it does not follow that poor people as a collective group cannot go vegan. By extension, it also does not follow that a poor person is any less likely to be able to maintain a healthy vegan diet than they are to be able to maintain an omnivorous one. Unless you yourself absolutely cannot go vegan due to your financial situation, bringing up the existence of poor people as an attack on veganism without any real empathy or analysis is intellectually lazy at best. At worst, it is using the struggles of impoverished people as fodder to support an anti-vegan agenda.

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

(source)

tag yourself i’m wowoman

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

What you need to know about Obama’s new letter of guidance for transgender students.

the administration has determined that the designation of “sex” in Title IX protections also includes gender identity, which means that if public schools don’t comply with these protections, they lose federal funding

transgender students are only required to have their parent or guardian contact the school district to notify them that their identity differs from what is previously on record

these students do not need to provide a medical diagnosis, identification documents, or any other information regarding their transition

transgender students must be accommodated even when it makes others students uncomfortable

transgender students can be offered the use of single stall restrooms, but if other students are not required to use them, then they aren’t required, either, and specifically mentions that if a student is uncomfortable sharing a restroom with a transgender person they can be offered a single stall restroom

these protections also cover correct pronoun use as well, along with other guidelines

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

Gentrification creates a stifling homogeneity in urban areas that makes it less suited for the everyday lives of the lower class and more suited towards the leisure and tourism of those with expendable income.

An old, decrepit laundromat gets replaced by an upscale bakery? And people are mad? It’s not that the poor hate organic vegan cupcakes, it’s that most of us don’t have a way to do laundry in our own home.

Run-down corner stores replaced by hand-made designer clothing boutiques? We don’t hate your eco-fabric shawl, but I can’t eat that for dinner after work like I could have a can of beans I grabbed from that corner store when I don’t have time to take the bus to the real grocery store after work.

What gentrification brings in and of itself is not typically bad, it’s that gentrification brings institutions of leisure and pleasure and makes it so that the poor have to go farther out of their way for basic necessities. It turns low-income living spaces into local tourist attractions. It can even create food deserts by putting restaurants, grocery stores, etc. in that the majority of the lower class cannot afford.

Imagine if someone totally renovated your house and turned it into a mini theme park - they took away your sleeping space, where you prepare food, where you clean yourself and get ready for your day, and replaced it with things that will please people who are visiting, who have their own homes they can go back to, who are here not for their entire life but just as a distraction from their otherwise mundane existence. It’s not that you hate theme parks, it’s not like you’ve never been to a theme park and vow to never visit one again. It’s just that you need to live! To survive! And the leisure of those who have more than you should not invalidate your existence.

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

watch my @tedx talk: #freethefemme–in which i try to unpack the aesthetics of feminist respectability. long hair makeup dresses “feminizing” surgeries/treatments etc. do not make someone a bad feminist! in fact–for trans women (especially trans women of color)–they could mark the difference between life and death! thanks to connecticut college for having me and @calvinklein for dressing me. this was a wild process but i’m glad it’s out

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

Cinderella transformation dress for the cosplay contest at G6!

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

idk I just love how we Young People Today use ~improper~ punctuation/grammar in actually really defined ways to express tone without having to explicitly state tone like that’s just really fucking cool, like

no ��  =    “No,” she said. 

no.    =    "No,” she said sharply.

No    =    “No,” she stated firmly.

No.    =    “No,” she snapped.

NO    =    “No!” she shouted.

noooooo    =    “No,” she moaned.

no~    =    “No,” she said with a drawn-out sing-song.

~no~    =    “No,” she drawled sarcastically.

NOOOOO    =    “No!” she screamed dramatically.

no?!    =    “No,” she said incredulously.

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

I am a disgusting pissbaby it’s true

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

There’s a problem that happens when we confuse “coping” with “self care”.  Consider a person with severe depression who is just trying to survive. Maybe they have a lot of trouble eating properly. So they eat a lot of pizza, because it’s the thing that they can get easily and convince themselves to eat. That’s coping. (And again, there’s no judgement here. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do to get through your day). Coping is, unfortunately, a part of life under capitalism. Our basic needs are not being met, and we have to do what we have to do to get through life, hoping that someday, things will be better. Eating a lot of pizza might be a good way for that person to get through their day. But nobody would argue that eating a lot of pizza is a healthy dietary choice. Using the word coping implies a recognition that the strategy should be a temporary measure. Coping is what you do until you find a way to be healthy in a sustainable way. The term “self care” gets thrown around all the time when what we are really talking about is coping. Sometimes this idea is disguised by using terms like “retail therapy” or a “girls day”. Advertisements use phrases like “you deserve it” to remind people (and especially women) that they’ve worked hard and could use a break. Using the term “self care” instead of “coping” justifies the ongoing nature of it. Calling it “self care” or saying “I deserve it” makes it sound like it’s as natural and necessary to life as making dinner. But what if it’s not necessary? What if we’ve just been duped by capitalism into believing that it is? […] Capitalism, and the individualism that supports it, have made us believe that as adults we have to take care of ourselves (and maybe our romantic partners). And so in order to get through it, we cope. We buy things we don’t really need, we eat out, and we shop for shiny new things. Because that way, it feels like we’re doing it all by ourselves. We believe that by paying for stuff, it means we’re taking care of ourselves, like capitalism tells us we are supposed to. Do we really need that though? Eating healthy and ethically is something I think about a lot. I like to cook, and I have some specific dietary needs that I need to follow in order to have enough energy most of the time. But it’s a lot of work. Sometimes, this means I eat takeout more often that I maybe should, and I end up wasting money and buying unsustainable food (that is still good in a dietary sense) because it’s more convenient. It’s a coping mechanism. One way to get around this, however, has been to get other people to cook for me. This is still self-care, in a way, because I’m taking responsibility for it. But I’ve delegated that responsibility for one night a week to somebody else who knows my dietary needs and has the capacity and willingness to help me out. This is community care.

Why I don’t believe in “self-care” (and how to make it obsolete) ‘ (via pbnpineapples)

[antidisestablishmentarianjism]

Neutrality is not enlightenment. It is a position only accessible to those for whom the stakes are very low, who want to feel superior to those who have no choice but to care.