How Pre-packaged Avocados Reflect The Way I Approach Social Justice

You might have seen this image floating around the internet for a while. It’s not a new image. But every few months, someone reposts it and it gets a new life.

Last week, it showed up again on social media and a few people had a good chuckle. Of course they were chuckling at the expense of middle class people with middle class problems. But several dissenting commenters also showed up to the discussion to present a different perspective. There were plenty to choose from. But this is one [very white] example.

At first, I conceded the point and flogged myself for being an ableist dirtbag who hates all people with physical disabilities and vowed to do better. But then I thought about this more objectively and came to a different conclusion. The church of social justice demands that we all share the same party line, and if we don’t we face immediate, harsh, and permanent retribution for that sin.

But I think there’s a better way to look at this. And here’s why.

First of all, I’m confused about why this commenter invoked food deserts. It seemed like a strange place to go considering that two of the key indicators for what constitutes a food deserts are based on 1.) affordability and 2.) lack of geographical access. The avocados in this viral image were being sold in Sobeys, the second largest grocery store chain in Canada, for more than double the price of an un-packaged avocado. Therefore, they miss the mark on both indicators. At best, I feel like we’ve just gotten comfortable with throwing the phrase ‘food deserts’ out there whenever someone is having a discussion even remotely related to food justice in some type of intersectional feminist jargon bingo.

These bad boys were being sold for 6 USD.

It’s like the recent pre-peeled oranges fiasco in Whole Foods. Sure, people with physical disabilities can benefit from them. But Whole Foods is a gentrifying organization who was selling those oranges at an extortionate price. The physically disabled were not collectively sighing with relief at their newfound good fortune. They were trying to pay their electric bill and drinking dollar store orange juice instead because Whole Foods was already stunting on them.

Second, there’s the claim that products like these avocados (broadly called infomercial products) are designed for people with disabilities but marketed to rich white people in order to make them available and affordable. And yeah, that would totally make sense…

except there’s no evidence that marketing infomercial products to clumsy white people with too much money was a noble effort to help people with disabilities. It’s most certainly true of SOME of these products but by no means all of them and not even the majority. Included in that claim is the urban legend about the Snuggie being originated for people in wheelchairs. But that’s been (repeatedly) debunked.

Third, I feel like we jump to apply the phrase ‘people with disabilities’ very liberally, but it doesn’t have a lot of value. No two people with disabilities are the same EVEN if two people have exactly the same condition.

Taking on disability rights advocacy is the right thing to do. But choosing which disabled group to prioritize is completely arbitrary in this circumstance. In the case of pre-packaged avocados, the people who benefit from them are already in a seriously privileged position versus the people who are hurt by their production. The amount of waste generated alone is a net fail based on the damage done to already overburdened ecosystems. And this has a disproportionate impact on indigenous human and animal populations, many of whom have physical disabilities themselves.

And I don’t mean that in a tangential esoteric way. I mean a direct and measurable real-time impact!

And in general terms, a huge number of infomercial products are manufactured in places where labor conditions are so abominable that they literally CREATE physical disabilities among workers and then lock those workers in cycles of poverty.

So when referencing ‘physically disabled people,’ it’s more productive to speak with greater intention and clarity about who we’re talking about instead of reaching for a hypothetical person. Because which people and what disabilities is so obscure here as to be completely lost.

Fourth, let’s talk again about affordability. The pay gap for people with disabilities in the United States alone is at least 13%, and I’m being generous for the sake of discussion. Some research places it at 37%, and the average pay gap climbs even higher still depending on what state you live in. In fact, people with physical disabilities often earn what’s called sub-minimum wages. And that’s before you factor in pay gaps based on race, gender, and type of disability. In short, these avocados are not the hill I want to die on.

If, as suggested by the screen-capped comment, you have some condition that allows you to dice onions and tomatoes and cilantro for guacamole…but lack the dexterity to cut an avocado…yet can still gnaw your way into this exceptionally restrictive packaging that would challenge a very able-bodied person, then I completely empathize with you. I won’t question your disability or interrogate your desire to make this bizarrely specific food. However, if you’re buying all these pre-packaged ingredients in order to enjoy the satisfaction of making your fresh guacamole (which was also a suggested possibility), I might ask you for a loan. Because I’m a baller on a budget, and you’re clearly a Rockefeller making the guacamole of millionaires.

And last but most importantly, I feel like we’re arguing for disability rights from the wrong perspective. If products like these are marketed to rich, clumsy, lazy, entitled white people in order to make them affordable to people with disabilities, then that plan isn’t working because 1.) most of those products remain inaccessible based on their price point and the low incomes of the people who need them and 2.) people with disabilities should not have to rely on the purchasing habits of incompetent white people who like mass-produced convenience goods frequently manufactured in slavery conditions by people in economically disadvantaged countries.

At the end of the day, we collectively want to do right by everyone. And that’s not a bad thing. But this whole situation reminds me that a lot of our activism is wrapped up in performance. And we are assuming a dangerously prescriptivist nature in our interactions with one another. We don’t need to be in a competition to appear to be the most woke, gang.

Taking an interdisciplinary approach to our food justice requires us to think more critically and investigate further than just outrage based on what we think is right. We should look past the immediate situation and see the global consequences for oppressed communities instead of just seeing at individual products through a strictly imperialist worldview. Sometimes a pre-packaged avocado is just a white people answer to a white people problem. Don’t believe me? See avocado hand. Apparently it’s a real thing and it’s hilarious…although considering that we’re calling it a medical condition, that’s probably ableist to say. Even if we’re talking about people who I guess cut their avocados like a serial killer.

P.S. I actually did run this by a friend of mine with multiple physical disabilities (including issues surrounding hand mobility). When I asked her if she felt like the lives of people like her were improved by pre-packaged avocados, she laughed in my ear. To quote, “Child, leave me alone. Avocados are the whitest thing you could be bringing in my face right now. You know what improves my life? Pre-made guacamole. You know what else improves my life? Jars of salsa. I don’t need to make that either. And nobody campaigning for my right to do it. In fact, I don’t need to cook any of my own food in order to feel validated as a person in a wheelchair. What I NEED is FOOD.”

For the record, she also tried a Snuggie once. And you know what she learned? That trying to operate a wheelchair while being draped in yards of fabric with sleeve holes is a goddamn catastrophe.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Advertisements

The One

As I type this, a weeks-old baby has snuggled up on my wife’s shoulder, where they (we’re not sure about boy or girl yet) had crawled up of their own volition in order to “perch” while also seeking comfort, warmth, and safety. All these are natural behaviors of a young one, though Angelica has never known their mother. All that Angelica has known of humans—up until a truly miraculous effort in the past few days—is at best horrifying. And yet now they find comfort while sleeping against a human face.

This is a life that was destined for death—that had nearly every cog of the human cultural machine turning against its continuance. And yet, here Angelica is with a future unfolding ahead of them.

While I was on a long rescue trip the other day, someone told me—commenting on a post I wrote to mourn the loss of another individual—that I had convinced them the emotionalism of individual animal rescue was fruitless, and general vegan education is what matters.

I sometimes wonder if veganism is just an argument to some people, a theoretical position in a field of debate, untethered from actual lives. I don’t see how any of this matters if we devalue individuals so much right now in the hopes of someday saving thousands from peril. I don’t see how we can have any actual attachment to thousands if we don’t want to see the one.

What is clear, at least, is that Angelica did not ask to be here but is, right now, and wants to be. I guess I’ll always prefer to respect that and see injustice in terms of individual harm, knowing all too well how much injustice we do to them…and how hard they fight simply to be, despite all of our nonsense.

Their desire to live and our connection with them are not phenomena that we can quantify, or measure for efficacy, and the reality of who they are is lost to us when stretched to billions and billions–to terms beyond our ability to viscerally comprehend. Connecting with individuals can greatly galvanize us as we fight for justice, building outwards from these relationships in ways that challenge the computational commodity-mongering of capitalism.

Justice is not a currency and will not be found in our wallets or our rhetoric. It is forged in the connections we make and the willingness we have to mediate our power by the sort of personal respect for others that directly challenges our wielding of it.

“Persistent Ovulator”

Many people who don’t understand why eggs can never be an ethical foodstuff for humans are surprised to learn that selective breeding for egg laying has made modern hens prone to cancer and other reproductive diseases. As such, medical researchers are using hens as models for studies into ovarian cancer in humans.:

The domestic laying chicken has been intensely selected to be a persistent ovulator. That is, the tendency for broodiness has been nearly eliminated and, given the appropriate lighting and nutrition, many strains of laying hens produce an egg on almost every day. […] Commercial laying hens also spontaneously develop ovarian cancer at a high rate, and susceptibility to this disease has been associated with ovulatory events in women.

Think about all that for a second.

Hens are forced by genetic manipulation to lay eggs so frequently that they are highly predisposed to reproductive cancers. The thing they were bred to do for humans will likely kill them.

Of course, hens die from lots of other things, too, as their reproductive system breaks down; this is why most hens do not live beyond 4-5 years…which is also the age they mostly stop laying. Those chickenly problems aren’t quite as useful for humans, apparently…

Equally awful, as the Poultry Science abstract cited above also makes clear, humans have bred OUT the mothering instinct in most hens because it interfered with egg laying.

Put another way, hens don’t even get the chance to experience motherhood…because nothing in their hijacked biology compels them to.

Every time someone eats an egg, these are the things that are being supported and normalized.

That’s part of why eggs don’t “just happen,” and why laying hens can never be truly “happy” when you steal the object of their suffering.

“…You don’t have a problem with trigger warnings.”

Jesus be a black woman smoking a cigarette in front of armed cops.

I’m in Chicago O’Hare airport right now, I’ve been on a trip that included New York, Philly, and suburban Illinois. This is the last stop. I’m on my way home. I’m about to catch my flight. But before heading out this morning I paid a visit to an old family friend.

An auntie as we say. Of course it’s always an auntie or a cousin. People who have been in your life for years, but don’t have a biological link, have to fit in some category. So if they’re close to us in age, they’re a cousin. But if they’re significantly older, they need some designation that establishes a type of respect. Hence auntie.

My auntie is in her 70s. Like my grandmother, she smokes Pall Mall cigarettes (and she pronounced them Pell Mell). And when she doesn’t have a good enough reason to leave her home, she wears her dressing gown all day.

As far as I’m concerned, #GOALS.

She muted the tv as we sat down and asked how I was doing. (I’m fine.)

She asked if I’m seeing anyone. (I’m still not.)

She didn’t ask if I was seeing a girl. She knows I’m gay, but we don’t talk about it. She’s not exactly homophobic. But she doesn’t really know what to do with this information. So instead of asking about boys specifically, she just plays the pronoun game. Which is hilarious considering where we collectively are with pronouns for trans people. But I digress.

We spent about 15 minutes with her getting me caught up on Days of Our Lives. Personally I gave up on ‘the stories’ in the early 2000s. But she keeps me in the loop so I’m not lost in case I come back to the fold. I was devastated when Stefano DiMera died. The actor’s death in real life reminded me that all my faves that I grew up will age and pass away.

Eventually we were both on our phones because ~21st century. I’m mildly surprised she uses her smartphone as much as she does. But auntie ain’t no goddamn punk. She might not own a computer. But she uses her phone nonstop, and she knows how to DVR better than I can.

Somehow we got on the topic of social media. She follows me on Facebook. She doesn’t know wtf I’m talking about half the time. But she thinks I’m pretty popular.

We talked about the piece I put up on Thursday. I told her the Internet was hauling me up over it. A couple of folks were pressed about the main gist of the essay, but mainly people took issue with the trigger warnings part.

Now all this social justice talk is pretty boring to her. So I did my best to explain in brief what all the terms and catchphrases meant and why I said wtf I said.

Not a week passes by in which I don’t have at least two messages from people either telling me that something I said in conversation online should have had a trigger warning, and two more messages from people telling me words that I should not say at ALL when talking about other animals regardless of the circumstances (btw, the list includes, among other words: slavery, rape, kidnap, abuse, captive, refugee, and prisoner).

At one point, I found myself trying to hold space in my head to accommodate this rapidly accumulating list of words while speaking and trying to monitor for anything that might remotely damage someone else. In some ways, it’s like my Czech language classes…except there’s a penalty for getting it wrong. And in some cases, that penalty is severe. Every single day, I could feel my anxiety peak with the understanding that I would inevitably fail and end up in an even worse depression than I am already experiencing (and for longer and longer periods, these days).

She sat calmly reading her phone, not even looking up. To the average person, it probably appeared as though she wasn’t even listening to me. But to a veteran smartphone multi-tasker, I knew she heard every word. Patiently she asked, “Sebastian, who are the people that are worrying you?”

“Intersectional vegans,” I answered quickly.

“No, I mean are they white?”

And I thought about it. Yes. Yes, they are white. Every single person rolling up through my DMs—of whom there are dozens—rolling up through my DMs with new demands is white. One hundred percent. And I don’t mean some approximate percentage that is close to one hundred. I mean every last one of them. I told her this.

Seemingly unsurprised, she asked further, “No black people at all?”

“A couple of black voices, to varying degrees, responded to my post that they had a dissenting position. But none who were particularly pressed. Mostly questioning or adding to the conversation. But no, I never actually received a message from a black person requesting a trigger warning or telling me what words I should use or avoid.”

“Sounds to me like you don’t have a problem with trigger warnings. You have a white people problem.

And right there was the crux of my situation in fourteen words.

She smiled that smile of people who BEEN knew shit that you just now finding out and said, “Sebastian, black people have been dealing with trauma in this country for hundreds of years. We know what it looks like. We’re used to managing it. Even if we didn’t have the language to articulate it. Unfortunately, we were never afforded the privilege of avoiding these ‘triggers’ that traumatize us.”

She said ‘triggers’ in that tone people use when they don’t know what in the hell you’re talking about and would just as soon use the word ‘who-zee-wutz-it.’

“What frustrates you,” she continued, “Is that white people are finding new ways to dominate the conversation by making demands upon blackness to make them comfortable while they are learning to deal with it.”

Well, okay…fuck!

She sat there staring at me like you’d stare at a child who is figuring out that there ain’t no damn tooth fairy. Like, “Come on. Did you really think some white woman was coming in your house to pick up body parts that have fallen out of your face and pay you money for them?”

It seems so obvious now that I think about it. Of course nobody deserves to deal with trauma. And everyone should be afforded the space to manage it. But what I didn’t like was whiteness appropriating the intellectual property of black women, i.e., intersectionality, to prioritize their needs or otherwise avoid feeling offended.

Not prioritizing the needs of black women. Certainly not prioritizing the needs of other animals. Themselves.

That’s not the fault of trigger warnings. That’s an issue of white supremacy and white entitlement.

And here before me was a black woman without the trappings of a university education. Who didn’t define herself as a goddamn intersectional anything. And who wasn’t even vegan.

And then I felt ashamed and angry with myself for relying on her counsel. AGAIN. I’m yet another person using the emotional and intellectual resources of black women to unpack my own struggles.

So two things I learned from this experience. Number one, I need to more closely examine what I’m feeling and why in order to write with greater intention. Number two and more importantly, always check in with black women. Not for myself, but for them.

And as I left, the television still sat muted in the background. On the screen, the news was reporting the unfolding story of white supremacists waging war in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The trauma doesn’t end.

Author’s note: To everyone who participated in the conversation on Facebook from a place of loving engagement, thank you. I’m sorry. I appreciate having a community that wants to build instead of promote toxic behaviors and for understanding that ALL YOUR FAVES ARE PROBLEMATIC. Even and especially me. So we have to rely on each other to get through this. And as with all things, I’m leaving that previous post as is. Because if we don’t fucking allow people the space to evolve and change (spoiler alert: we don’t), then basically we’re saying that oppressive behavior is the default position forever, which is of course absurd. Otherwise nobody would ever be vegan…and I wouldn’t have written this post.

Radical Veganism and Rape Language in Animal Advocacy

Author’s Note: I covered this in part during my October 2016 talk at VegFestUK on Queering Animal Liberation. But I wrote the following piece for anyone who doesn’t have time for a 30-minute presentation and just want an easy read that focuses specifically on this issue. Personally, I do NOT use rape in my own advocacy (perhaps not for the reasons you probably think), even though some ecofeminist vegans have done historically and still do. My views are not meant to silence anyone else or tell any reader how to conduct their advocacy. These are merely MY OWN reflections on MY OWN approach and why I choose it.

When it comes to discussions of rape, I commonly see two main positions. The intersectional vegan position frequently argues that use of strong language about rape diminishes human victims and frequently triggers women. Conversely, the mainstream community argues that omission of rape against other animals is speciesist against animal victims. Taking a radical position on this, neither of these arguments come across as entirely accurate or productive for me. Here’s why:

Rape discourse most often occurs with the dairy industry in mind.

And why wouldn’t it? Milk production for human consumption is an emotionally traumatic experience for parents and an ecological disaster for the planet. And although some people might call it emotionally manipulative, a nursing parent is a powerful image to connect with. But when we center dairy as the pinnacle of parenthood in the exploitation of reproductive autonomy, we unintentionally risk minimizing the experiences of non-mammalian parents who have their reproductive autonomy stolen as well because the same type of painful penetration is largely absent against them, namely chickens and fish who are exploited in far greater numbers. And speaking of penetration…

Rape discourse centers penetration, which feels inherently reductive.

If we go by the strictest definition of rape (and we all love a good dictionary definition), then yes it’s defined as unlawful and nonconsensual penetration. By that standard, there should be absolutely no argument that the dairy industry meets the standard of raping animals (and frankly, not just dairy animals, but all mammals who experience nonconsensual penetration for human interests). However, when we examine the larger social constructions around rape, I’m very reluctant to apply the strict definition.

Socially speaking, rape is less about penetrative sex and more about the one-on-one performance of power and domination against a vulnerable individual. So far as dairy production is concerned, this is often absent. The theft of reproductive autonomy is performed out of economic interest. Is it sexual violence? MOST DEFINITELY. And we should call it that unapologetically. But I don’t think rape actually even begins to cover how the scope and horror of that sexual violence. And centering penetration is also reductive with regard to the bodies who are  molested in order to procure the sperm for impregnation. By the way, notice that I’m using the term bodies instead of male or female. Why? Because…

Our rape discussions unnecessarily genders bodies, which promotes gender conformity.

We’re so used to gendering animal bodies that we completely invisible-ize animal identities in the name of protecting them. But we don’t need to do this. Bodies with uteruses are exploited. Bodies with penises are exploited. Referring to them as male or female unnecessarily reinforces outdated language around masculinity and femininity. We can talk about sexual violence without erasing the diversity of sexuality and gender presentation present throughout the animal kingdom. Sexual violence against animals destroys families and creates trauma irrespective of gender. And what body parts they have doesn’t change the fact that it’s all bad. Also…

Reproductive autonomy and sexual autonomy are related but different.

When we talk about stealing reproductive autonomy away from animals, we often conflate that with sexual autonomy. But the theft of sexual autonomy is sexual violence of a different nature, and it deserves to be recognized on its own. For example, animal companions (most frequently dogs and cats) are forcibly sterilized. This robs these individuals of their sexual identities and the range of their sexual expression. And if you think forced sterilization against other animals doesn’t impact our attitudes toward other humans, it happens to vulnerable humans all the time. See the prison industrial complex, the forced sterilization against Native women in the United States, and more.

Sexual violence manifests in more than just penetrative rape.

When we consider the sheer scope and breadth of sexual violence that we commit against other species on this planet, rape only constitutes one part of a truly terrifying system. In the United States alone, virtually all male pig babies are routinely castrated without anesthesia. However, we don’t discuss that an act of genital mutilation, which we should. And lest we forget, anal electrocution is a common method of executing animals on fur farms.

Now throughout all this talk of rape, readers might have noticed that I haven’t once used a single trigger warning. And this might be the most contentious part of this post. But here goes…

The common usage of emotional triggers in online spaces is unsupported by the data.

After witnessing a particularly tense online exchange in which a person argued against using the word kidnapping to describe animal victims because they had themselves been kidnapped (and human victims of kidnapping are an oppressed minority, I assume), I decided that I wanted to look more into emotional triggers. After all, this person’s potential to be triggered shut any further discussion down.

Full disclosure: I am a two-time victim of rape and I am diagnosed with both clinical depression and social anxiety disorder. I know what my emotional triggers are, and I know how to manage them. This is obviously not true for everyone, but these are my experiences. That said, when I looked for scholarly sources about emotional triggers, I came up with very few accessible resources.

Undeterred, I consulted with two vegan psychiatrists who specialize in various types of trauma. One white and male, the other black and female—both of them doctors, and both with more than 10 years experience. On condition of anonymity (come on y’all, everybody don’t want their professional name associated with an obscure blog  that has some distinctively liberal views on vegan activism), both separately agreed that avoiding emotional triggers is the absolute worst thing you can do for your recovery and that triggers are often overused and misrepresented by laypersons. At best, there is no consensus within the community. As such, I choose not to employ them and unintentionally enable anyone who abuses them.

Of course, when all is said and done…

None of this should imply that rape against other animals does NOT occur.

Nonconsensual sexual contact with other animals is not only real but pervasive. At the time of this writing, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that the current definition of bestiality only included penetrative acts and a VICE article about an orangutan who was shaved and used as a sex slave has enjoyed a disturbingly long life on social media. So rape against other species unequivocally happens. I just think that it is applied too liberally and should be discussed in a much broader context that recognizes sexual violence is foundational to industrial animal agriculture. And focusing on only one aspect of it is like cleaning up a stain on the carpet when the house is on fire.  Regardless of whether it’s for profit or sexual gratification, it needs to be abolished.

 

Queer people have a republican problem…but animals have one too.

bratt
Rep. Rick Brattin looking like his GRINDr profile says “Masc4Masc only.” [photo credit: Pink News]
During a debate last month over a bill amendment to protect LGBT people, Republican lawmaker Rick Brattin stated, “When you look at the tenets of religion, of the Bible, of the Qu’ran, of other religions, there is a distinction between homosexuality and just being a human being.”

I’ll repeat that last part again for the folks in the cheap seats. There is a distinction between homosexuality and just being a human being. That’s right. Brattin believes homosexuality makes someone inhuman. And hes’s not alone.

I was going to be stunned at this remarkable quote. But then I remembered that these words are only the latest in a long and proud history of conservative U.S. politicians making inflammatory statements about queer people, and I couldn’t even be bothered to raise an eyebrow.

Onetime presidential candidate (and everyone’s favorite dumpster fire) Dr. Ben Carson stated in 2014 that same sex couples would lead to pedophilia and bestiality. And Rick Santorum has been banging that drum since at least 2003.

Now setting aside the fact that the slippery slope argument is logically fallacious (and downright bananapants)…and also setting aside the fact that most acts of pedophilia and bestiality are statistically carried out by people who identify as straight, Brattin’s words reveal a common thread that we’ve discussed before—the invention of human as a political identity.

See, ‘human’ is coded language for normative whiteness.  Access to that whiteness is only granted by jumping through a lot of flaming hoops. And guess what? Such access is fleeting and can be revoked at any given time. Anybody who is not ‘human’ by the standards of normative whiteness is either collateral damage, inferior, or an exploitable resource (and that last one can include animals who are not human, black people, pretty much anybody with a working uterus, low wage workers, or all of the above at the same time!).

White gay men get to join the club…but only sometimes. The protections of whiteness for them are limited based on their ability to perform heterosexual masculinity. And as we can see from Brattin’s remarks, buttsex will occasionally get them thrown under the bus.

And if the comments on the Pink News article are any indication, they’re not too happy about it.

Of course, being animalized under the gaze of normative whiteness is nothing new to any person of color. Folks have been comparing black people to animals since forever. Ask Serena Williams or Michelle Obama. There’s no shortage of examples. And if you’re a queer black woman, well then you just got hit with a triple whammy because you stand smack dab at the cross section of race, gender, and sexuality. And the bus is coming FAST. Btw, don’t even think about being trans too because, well…[trails off in exhaustion at the thought of writing 14,000 more words].

Of course the trap we fall into is continuing to allow whiteness the benefit of maintaining this hierarchy. Human (read: whiteness) can’t sit at the top of the heap if we abolish the heap altogether. When I stopped seeking to prove my humanity in the eyes of whiteness and instead allied myself with all marginalized persons to include animals, I gained a more cohesive sense of solidarity. Longtime vegan and queer activist pattrice jones explores this theme in her talk about the commonalities of oppression, which was pivotal to changing my framework.

As a femme-of-center queer black person who cares about human rights, I contend that our collective understanding of such rights has shifted to gaining our own access to whiteness as opposed to seeking justice. And since that still maintains the hierarchy of oppression, I’m not interested. This is, in part, why the focus of my activism centers animals instead. We already know that oppression thrives in isolation. So using our privilege to align ourselves with more marginalized groups is a direct threat to the institution of white supremacy.

Although realistically speaking, queer white people (men in particular) can’t even be bothered to find solidarity with queer people of color, the most recent example being  the viciously racist criticisms of queer people in Philadelphia who unveiled a new variation of the pride flag in their local community. So maybe I’m just praying for a miracle.

And disclaimer: before you find it within your heart to say that black people co-sign on these shenanigans too, we are already well aware. This is why I stress the phrase normative whiteness. You don’t have to actually BE white in order to identify with or perpetuate it. Anti-blackness is a helluva drug. And ironically, addiction to it isn’t limited to skin color.

Speaking of which, can we go back to Ben Carson for a minute? I mean, we really need to do something. This man is a brain surgeon. An actual BRAIN SURGEON. I feel like y’all should be more scared than I think you are.

 

When HuffPo Misrepresented Chickens, #VegansWithChickens Responded…

As is the case with all animals humans share space with, chickens can occasionally carry zoonotic pathogens that may transfer to humans and other animals. Sadly, many health organizations are zeroing in on this as a public health threat, and in the process they and the media are creating a skewed picture of chickens as dirty, diseased enemies of public welfare. And apparently cuddling is the problem!

So when HuffPost Lifestyle shared an ominously headlined article about chickens making people ill, Vegans with Chickens showed up to defiantly support chicken companionship and cuddles in the context of rescue and non-exploitation, pointing out along the way the hypocrisy of targeting chickens as too nasty to cuddle but perfectly okay to eat.

It was brilliant…

This is only the beginning…