Animal, Vegetable, or Woman?: A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism (Hardcover)

~ (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From the Back Cover

Kathryn Paxton George challenges the view held by noted philosophers Tom Regan and Peter Singer and ecofeminists Carol Adams and Deane Curtin who assume the Principle of Equality to argue that no one should eat meat or animal products. She shows how these renowned individuals also violate the Principle of Equality, because they place women, children, adolescents, the elderly, and many others in a subordinate position. She reviews the principal arguments of these major ethical thinkers, offers a detailed examination of the nutritional literature on vegetarianism, and shows how this inconsistency arises and why it recurs in every major argument for ethical vegetarianism. Included is her own view about what we should eat, which she calls "feminist aesthetic semi-vegetarianism." "George has presented original, often compelling, arguments against ethical vegetarianism. Relying on well-researched evidence of nutritional and material differences among humans based on age, gender, race, class, and cultural location, George shows respects in which current arguments for vegetarianism falsely presuppose a male physiological norm and ideal. This book is necessary reading for animal rights advocates, feminists, ethicists, or anyone else interested in interconnected health and ethical issues concerning vegetarianism." - Karen J. Warren, author of Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It Is and Why It Matters "This broadly provocative book should be controversial, worthy of being attacked on several fronts. It is central to two large topics: feminist philosophy and the moral status of animals. It will not be the last word on any of the controversial issues that it touches upon, but it is unequivocally the next word." - Paul B. Thompson, author of Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

About the Author

Kathryn Paxton George is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Idaho. She is the coeditor of two volumes: Agricultural Ethics: Issues for the Twenty-first Century (with Peter G. Hartel and James Vorst) and Readings in the Development of Moral Thought, Second Edition (with Marvin Henberg). --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 221 pages
• Publisher: State University of New York Press (October 2000)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0791446875
• ISBN-13: 978-0791446874
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #7,837,733 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

19 of 29 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars An absolutely absurd thesis, October 10, 2001

By A Customer

This review is from: Animal, Vegetable, or Woman?: A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism (Paperback)

There are some ethicists who seem to operate on a crude hydraulic model of ethical concern, which has as its primary assumption the belief that you can't be concerned with more than one kind of injustice without dissipating valuable energy. This is the underlying presumption behind George's "Animal, Vegetable, or Woman." She claims that to be concerned with giving animals moral concern takes away moral concern for women--as if the two are mutually exclusive. She ridiculously claims that pregnant women need to eat meat or consume dairy products to ensure the health of their fetuses (jeez, where does she get this nonsense from!?) and that consequently moral defences of vegetarianism are anti-woman. Never mind that Peter Singer has made a career from comparing speciesism to sexism, or that careful and profoundly feminist vegetarians such as Carol Adams or Deane Curtin think otherwise. It's difficult to figure out if George's primary motive is to trash vegetarianism or defend a strangely unfeminist woman-uber-alles kind of position. A shameful book.

13 of 20 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Puh-LEASE help Kathryn George see the light!, October 29, 2003

By	Ertarox (Nomadic) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Animal, Vegetable, or Woman?: A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism (Paperback)

This book is utter hogwash. George irrationally attempts to a imply that you are either feminist OR you eat meat. Unfortunately for her, eating meat and feminism (as well as civil rights, etc) fall under the same holistic philsophy that life is either respectable and that all beings should be free to walk their own path. I repeat, other species, colors, genders, nationalities, etc, are NOT here for the misuse and abuse of an elite few or collective many. She is no better than the bureaucracy that shamefully denied women (and blacks) rights when insinuating that women are "above" other sentient beings. I got news for George: she's an animal, too! And anyone with a clue about nutrition knows that meat and dairy products are abominable, causing disease and stress on the human body, ESPECIALLY the pregnant woman. Check out the health statistics and reports at any medical school library, in any compendium of studies - there is not one shred of evidence that dairy is or has ever been helpful! In fact, there are pages illustrating the heinous damage it wreaks on the human system. Why? Because no other animal nurses off another animal, that's absurd! And no other animal ingests milk after weening....Unfortunately once again for George, it is hard to take a feminist seriously if she can turn around and repeat the same horrors inflicted against female human animals on other animals in the animal kingdom. What a joke. Save your money and buy some Carol Adams or somebody reputable.....

4 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars great overview of vegetarian philosophy w/great critique, March 25, 2005

By	Maya Bahrani (USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Animal, Vegetable, or Woman?: A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism (Paperback)

I bought this book because I have a passionately vegetarian friend who is constantly shaming me because I eat meat. She claimed I was ignorant and if I only knew what she did then I would change my mind. She even told me she was a fundamentally better person than I was because of her vegetarianism. I bought this book in self defense. It is hard to find a book that argues the real IMPLICATIONS both philsophical and practical of vegetarianism. I find that those vegetarians who are constantly imposing their views upon others really don't understand the issues very well, meaning that they are making moral arguments without understanding what it means to make a moral argument. George talks about how moral vegetarianism smacks of sexism, racism, and classism. I think she makes very cogent arguments on all of those points. She IS very intelligent and a professor of this stuff, so attempts to dismiss her arguments should be strongly scrutinized! This doesn't mean that vegetarians ARE bad people. IT means that when we actually think about the implications of a seemingly unassailable idea that one shouldn't eat animals, it turns out that there are many ideological inconsistencies. But this book also has good pratical application--it's not too tangled in abstract philosophy. IN the end George comes up with a good compromise that respects the dignity and needs of *all* living creatures, human and animal alike. See vegetarians and carnivores CAN get along...