Appearance and Advocacy

[Guest guest]

Steve,

 

What really got the medical cannabis movement going and paved the way

for the progress we're seeing now was the passage of Proposition 215

in California, spearheaded by Dennis Peron (operator of SF's first

cannabis dispensary), who is a big radical hippie queen who I've never

seen wearing a suit. My impression is that most of the non-hippie, non-

radical types were surprised by the passage of Prop. 215, not thinking

something like that could pass, and that they mainly started getting

on board later, only after the idea was shown to be politically viable.

 

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

 

 

On Jul 6, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Steve Simitzis wrote:

 

> On Jul 6, 2009, at 1:44 PM, WgjII wrote:

> > I have experienced this theory in the gay community as well. I can

> > certainly see both arguments to the story but I have to say that

> > from my personal experience and from what I have witnessed over the

> > years both as a gay man and as a vegan (and I have paid close

> > attention to this) that the more " normal " (for lack of a better

> > word) a person looks the more likely they will break down

> > stereotypes and barriers and the more likely they will win people

> > over. It's a shame that human nature seems to work like this but

> > that is what I have witnessed and experienced in my life time both

> > as a gay man and as a vegan. It's kind of a sad statement about

> > human nature.

>

> I'd like to echo your comments, because they also applied in my

> experience to drug policy reform activism. (I was once a drug policy

> reform activist years ago, despite not being a user of drugs.) When

> the movement looked like a bunch of hippies and potheads, they were

> easily dismissed as college activists and doomed to irrelevance. But

> once they put on suits and started lobbying in DC and Sacramento,

> that's when we started seeing major progress, like medical marijuana

> laws passed all over the country.

[Guest guest]

Hi all, I understand how the topic started as "fat vegans" and morphed, but for further discussions, just a friendly reminder to keep the posts relevant to veg*nism / animal rights since that's the primary focus of the list.

 

Thanks!

Tammy

My two cents, vegan-style .. - today or read it on GenerationV.org

Save a life today - help us with public education & outreach

07/12 San Pedro Valley Hike - Pacifica 07/12 Food for Thought Book Club (new members welcome) 07/25 Plant-Powered Hikers: Redwoods! - Woodside

[Guest guest]

> "this email is obviously directed at some members who I didn't bother to name - and the author of the heinous article that started this discussion."

 

The author of the original article that started the whole discussion ("fat vegans") is Dr. McDougall. As far as I know, he is not on this list and would not be aware of how his viewpoint is being received.

 

I am curious if anyone has contacted him directly to give him feedback about this. It may very well be your feedback would help him realize the reaction to his article and help him be a more effective voice in promoting veganism, which I believe is what we all want.

 

Tammy

My two cents, vegan-style .. - today or read it on GenerationV.org

Save a life today - help us with public education & outreach

07/12 San Pedro Valley Hike - Pacifica 07/12 Food for Thought Book Club (new members welcome) 07/25 Plant-Powered Hikers: Redwoods! - Woodside

[Guest guest]

On Jul 6, 2009, at 9:31 PM, Tammy, BAVeg wrote:

 

> > " this email is obviously directed at some members who I didn't

> bother to name - and the author of the heinous article that started

> this discussion. "

>

> The author of the original article that started the whole discussion

> ( " fat vegans " ) is Dr. McDougall. As far as I know, he is not on

> this list and would not be aware of how his viewpoint is being

> received.

 

Perhaps you could invite him to join the list and participate in the

discussion. Dr. McDougall is based in Santa Rosa, so he would

certainly not be out of place on an SF Bay Area based veggie list.

[Guest guest]

as usual Rob, very well said!

 

Warren

In a message dated 7/7/09 8:52:17 AM, soyboyincali writes:

 

On Jul 6, 2009, at 9:31 PM, Tammy, BAVeg wrote:

 

> > "this email is obviously directed at some members who I didn't

> bother to name - and the author of the heinous article that started

> this discussion."

>

> The author of the original article that started the whole discussion

> ("fat vegans") is Dr. McDougall. As far as I know, he is not on

> this list and would not be aware of how his viewpoint is being

> received.

 

Perhaps you could invite him to join the list and participate in the

discussion. Dr. McDougall is based in Santa Rosa, so he would

certainly not be out of place on an SF Bay Area based veggie list.

 

 

A few comments about this whole debate:

This is just a wild guess on my part, but from past experience, Dr. McDougall isn't concerned about offending anyone, vegan or otherwise. If you've ever heard him speak, you probably know that he's not out to win any popularity contest. In one presentation, he started out by lumping vegans into various unhealthy categories, even including raw foodists for good measure-and this was at a vegetarian event. It seems that his perception of vegans is that of people who are more concerned about animal's welfare than their own welfare.

 

If you get his newsletter or have read his books, you've seen that  he doesn't use the term vegan too often when describing his approach to diet. He usually refers to it as a starch based plant foods diet.

 

Living in the vegan friendly bay area, it's easy to forget that the word vegan still has a stigma attached to it. There's a reason why Millennium and many other vegan restaurants promote themselves as vegetarian rather than vegan. They know they'll bring in more customers that way, including meat eaters who might not walk through the doors if they knew it was vegan.

 

It comes down to presenting yourself in the best way to achieve your goal. McDougall never suggested "Self Censorship" as one person put it, nor did he say that fat vegans shouldn't advocate veganism. Here's what he wrote:

"Fat vegans, however, have failed one important animal: themselves. Furthermore, their audiences of meat-eaters and animal-abusers may be so distracted by their appearance that they cannot hear the vital issues of animal rights and the environment; resulting in an unacknowledged setback for a fat vegan’s hard work for change."

 

There's a reason you don't wear the same clothes to a job interview that you wear to the beach. It's all about perception. Like it or not, many (or most) people judge others based on appearance. For many people, fat=unhealthy. So if someone who is perceived as unhealthy says "eat vegan like I do", the reaction might be along the lines of "eat the way you do so I can be unhealthy too?" When you're attempting to persuade someone to do something, presentation counts. If you don't believe it, show up in court wearing a clown suit the next time you go to fight a traffic ticket.

 

Having said all that, I'm NOT remotely saying that vegans should be one size fits all. Our differing backgrounds, ethnicities, sexual orientations, body sizes and opinions are what make BAVeg such a vibrant community (and provides for some lively debate).

 

I have to wonder though, if we were all reading the same article. One person even went as far as to write "This article goes way beyond that though, blaming fat vegans for their fatness and telling them they are not good enough to represent veganism." Really? I couldn't find that anywhere in McDougall's article. It seems like some are so busy taking offence at what they THINK they read, they didn't actually read the article or the replies.

 

-Rob

 

 

 

**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585089x1201462806/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072 & hmpgID=62 & bcd=JulyExcfooterNO62)

[Guest guest]

I didn't take Rob's email to mean that at all. I completely agree with what Rob had to say. I think a lot of people are misinterpreting what other people and what Dr. Mcdougall are saying.

 

Warren

In a message dated 7/7/09 11:59:37 AM, trwoodward writes:

 

Rob,

 

It's little wonder people take offense.  From reading your email it could seem as if you're comparing people with weight issues or health challenges who want to effectively advocate for veganism to someone as silly and frivilous as to wear a bikini to a job interview or a clown suit to court.  Why would ANYONE find that offensive?

 

To state the obvious - weight and health issues are NOT always a matter of choice - like your outfit for the day.  They also are not as easily or quickly changed as a set of clothes. 

 

Since vegetarians/ Since vegetarians/<wbr>vegans have long been unfairly stereotyped as weak, skinny to the point of unhealthy, thinned boned etc...  I'm saddened to see that a number of people in the community either share or can "understand" a similar prejudice in

 

While I didn't want to say this in my original post because it sounds egotistical and I didn't think it necessary to make the point - I will say it now.  Fortunately for me and the vegan community my employer did NOT judge me based on my size (maybe becauses I didn't wear a bathing suit but I still don't see how that applies).  I work at a large animal rights organization where I head up development.  I have raised in excess of 1.5 million dollars just since Jan. to further animal rights and vegan causes, often with direct contact with donors, -- 85% of every dollar going directly into multiple campaigns (not all vegan related but many).  I would argue that alone makes me as effective, if not more effective than many "skinny=healthy" people who would question whether or not I'm effective based on my size.

 

With that said I wish you all well - I'm going to quit monitoring this list now and this incredibly sad and frustrating debate and I'm going to go back to doing things that actually are making a difference.

 

Peace,

Tim

 

 

 

 

steve (AT) saturn5 (DOT) steve (AT) saturn5 (DOT) <wb To

CC: @CC:

soyboyincali@soy

Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:51:50 -0700

Re: Appearance and Advocacy

 

 

 

 

 

On Jul 6, 2009, at 9:31 PM, Tammy, BAVeg wrote:

 

> > "this email is obviously directed at some members who I didn't

> bother to name - and the author of the heinous article that started

> this discussion."

>

> The author of the original article that started the whole discussion

> ("fat vegans") is Dr. McDougall. As far as I know, he is not on

> this list and would not be aware of how his viewpoint is being

> received.

 

Perhaps you could invite him to join the list and participate in the

discussion. Dr. McDougall is based in Santa Rosa, so he would

certainly not be out of place on an SF Bay Area based veggie list.

 

 

A few comments about this whole debate:

This is just a wild guess on my part, but from past experience, Dr. McDougall isn't concerned about offending anyone, vegan or otherwise. If you've ever heard him speak, you probably know that he's not out to win any popularity contest. In one presentation, he started out by lumping vegans into various unhealthy categories, even including raw foodists for good measure-and this was at a vegetarian event. It seems that his perception of vegans is that of people who are more concerned about animal's welfare than their own welfare.

 

If you get his newsletter or have read his books, you've seen that  he doesn't use the term vegan too often when describing his approach to diet. He usually refers to it as a starch based plant foods diet.

 

Living in the vegan friendly bay area, it's easy to forget that the word vegan still has a stigma attached to it. There's a reason why Millennium and many other vegan restaurants promote themselves as vegetarian rather than vegan. They know they'll bring in more customers that way, including meat eaters who might not walk through the doors if they knew it was vegan.

 

It comes down to presenting yourself in the best way to achieve your goal. McDougall never suggested "Self Censorship" as one person put it, nor did he say that fat vegans shouldn't advocate veganism. Here's what he wrote:

"Fat vegans, however, have failed one important animal: themselves. Furthermore, their audiences of meat-eaters and animal-abusers may be so distracted by their appearance that they cannot hear the vital issues of animal rights and the environment; resulting in an unacknowledged setback for a fat vegan’s hard work for change."

 

There's a reason you don't wear the same clothes to a job interview that you wear to the beach. It's all about perception. Like it or not, many (or most) people judge others based on appearance. For many people, fat=unhealthy. So if someone who is perceived as unhealthy says "eat vegan like I do", the reaction might be along the lines of "eat the way you do so I can be unhealthy too?" When you're attempting to persuade someone to do something, presentation counts. If you don't believe it, show up in court wearing a clown suit the next time you go to fight a traffic ticket.

 

Having said all that, I'm NOT remotely saying that vegans should be one size fits all. Our differing backgrounds, ethnicities, sexual orientations, body sizes and opinions are what make BAVeg such a vibrant community (and provides for some lively debate).

 

I have to wonder though, if we were all reading the same article. One person even went as far as to write "This article goes way beyond that though, blaming fat vegans for their fatness and telling them they are not good enough to represent veganism." Really? I couldn't find that anywhere in McDougall's article. It seems like some are so busy taking offence at what they THINK they read, they didn't actually read the article or the replies.

 

-Rob

 

 

 

**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585089x1201462806/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072 & hmpgID=62 & bcd=JulyExcfooterNO62)

[Guest guest]

On Jul 6, 2009, at 9:31 PM, Tammy, BAVeg wrote:

 

> > "this email is obviously directed at some members who I didn't

> bother to name - and the author of the heinous article that started

> this discussion."

>

> The author of the original article that started the whole discussion

> ("fat vegans") is Dr. McDougall. As far as I know, he is not on

> this list and would not be aware of how his viewpoint is being

> received.

 

Perhaps you could invite him to join the list and participate in the

discussion. Dr. McDougall is based in Santa Rosa, so he would

certainly not be out of place on an SF Bay Area based veggie list. :)A few comments about this whole debate:This is just a wild guess on my part, but from past experience, Dr. McDougall isn't concerned about offending anyone, vegan or otherwise. If you've ever heard him speak, you probably know that he's not out to win any popularity contest. In one presentation, he started out by lumping vegans into various unhealthy categories, even including raw foodists for good measure-and this was at a vegetarian event. It seems that his perception of vegans is that of people who are more concerned about animal's welfare than their own welfare. If you get his newsletter or have read his books, you've seen that he doesn't use the term vegan too often when describing his approach to diet. He usually refers to it as a starch based plant foods diet. Living in the vegan friendly bay area, it's easy to forget that the

word vegan still has a stigma attached to it. There's a reason why Millennium and many other vegan restaurants promote themselves as vegetarian rather than vegan. They know they'll bring in more customers that way, including meat eaters who might not walk through the doors if they knew it was vegan. It comes down to presenting yourself in the best way to achieve your goal. McDougall never suggested "Self Censorship" as one person put it, nor did he say that fat vegans shouldn't advocate veganism. Here's what he wrote:"Fat vegans, however, have failed one important animal: themselves. Furthermore, their audiences of meat-eaters and animal-abusers may be so distracted by their appearance that they cannot hear the vital issues of animal rights and the environment; resulting in an unacknowledged setback for a fat vegan’s hard work for change."There's a reason you don't wear the same clothes to a job interview that you wear to the beach. It's all about perception. Like it or not, many (or most) people judge others based on appearance. For many people, fat=unhealthy. So if someone who is perceived as unhealthy says "eat vegan like I do", the reaction might be along the lines of "eat the way you do so I can be unhealthy too?" When you're attempting to persuade someone to do something, presentation counts. If you don't believe it, show up in court wearing a clown suit the next time you go to fight a traffic ticket. Having said all that, I'm NOT remotely saying that vegans should be one size fits all. Our differing backgrounds, ethnicities, sexual orientations, body sizes and opinions are what make BAVeg such a vibrant community (and provides for some lively debate). I have to wonder though, if we were all reading the same article. One person

even went as far as to write "This

article goes way beyond that though, blaming fat vegans for their

fatness and telling them they are not good enough to represent

veganism." Really? I couldn't find that anywhere in McDougall's article. It seems like some are so busy taking offence at what they THINK they read, they didn't actually read the article or the replies. -Rob

[Guest guest]

Had a hard time reading your responce because of the bizarre font and color

choice. Maybe if you're worried so much about appearance and looking

professional, a legible font would help

 

Agreed that a good debate is fun and necessary for expanding thought and I

really hope this conversation doesn't cause anyone to abandon the fabulous SF

Bay Veg!

 

A couple quick things. When McDougall writes about the unacknowledged setback,

it's basically telling fat vegans that they are doing harm to themselves and the

message of veganism. That is not okay. I don't care how callous McDougall is in

the rest of his proselytizing (except to the extent that he turns people away

from veganism, that sucks), this article is offensive and ridiculous. Plus, the

girl in the stock photo shot that is used in the article isn't even fat! I

realllllly hope that girl never sees the article, I can't imagine what it would

do for her self esteem but I can imagine an eating disorder might not be far

down the line.

 

Also, equating being a fat vegan with wearing a clown suit to court? Dang.

 

Laura

 

______

On Behalf Of soy boy

[soyboyincali]

Tuesday, July 07, 2009 11:51 AM

Steve Simitzis; Tammy, BAVeg

Cc:

Re: Appearance and Advocacy

 

On Jul 6, 2009, at 9:31 PM, Tammy, BAVeg wrote:

 

> > " this email is obviously directed at some members who I didn't

> bother to name - and the author of the heinous article that started

> this discussion. "

>

> The author of the original article that started the whole discussion

> ( " fat vegans " ) is Dr. McDougall. As far as I know, he is not on

> this list and would not be aware of how his viewpoint is being

> received.

 

Perhaps you could invite him to join the list and participate in the

discussion. Dr. McDougall is based in Santa Rosa, so he would

certainly not be out of place on an SF Bay Area based veggie list.

 

 

A few comments about this whole debate:

 

This is just a wild guess on my part, but from past experience, Dr. McDougall

isn't concerned about offending anyone, vegan or otherwise. If you've ever heard

him speak, you probably know that he's not out to win any popularity contest. In

one presentation, he started out by lumping vegans into various unhealthy

categories, even including raw foodists for good measure-and this was at a

vegetarian event. It seems that his perception of vegans is that of people who

are more concerned about animal's welfare than their own welfare.

 

If you get his newsletter or have read his books, you've seen that he doesn't

use the term vegan too often when describing his approach to diet. He usually

refers to it as a starch based plant foods diet.

 

Living in the vegan friendly bay area, it's easy to forget that the word vegan

still has a stigma attached to it. There's a reason why Millennium and many

other vegan restaurants promote themselves as vegetarian rather than vegan. They

know they'll bring in more customers that way, including meat eaters who might

not walk through the doors if they knew it was vegan.

 

It comes down to presenting yourself in the best way to achieve your goal.

McDougall never suggested " Self Censorship " as one person put it, nor did he say

that fat vegans shouldn't advocate veganism. Here's what he wrote:

 

" Fat vegans, however, have failed one important animal: themselves. Furthermore,

their audiences of meat-eaters and animal-abusers may be so distracted by their

appearance that they cannot hear the vital issues of animal rights and the

environment; resulting in an unacknowledged setback for a fat vegan’s hard work

for change. "

 

There's a reason you don't wear the same clothes to a job interview that you

wear to the beach. It's all about perception. Like it or not, many (or most)

people judge others based on appearance. For many people, fat=unhealthy. So if

someone who is perceived as unhealthy says " eat vegan like I do " , the reaction

might be along the lines of " eat the way you do so I can be unhealthy too? " When

you're attempting to persuade someone to do something, presentation counts. If

you don't believe it, show up in court wearing a clown suit the next time you go

to fight a traffic ticket.

 

Having said all that, I'm NOT remotely saying that vegans should be one size

fits all. Our differing backgrounds, ethnicities, sexual orientations, body

sizes and opinions are what make BAVeg such a vibrant community (and provides

for some lively debate).

 

I have to wonder though, if we were all reading the same article. One person

even went as far as to write " This article goes way beyond that though, blaming

fat vegans for their fatness and telling them they are not good enough to

represent veganism. " Really? I couldn't find that anywhere in McDougall's

article. It seems like some are so busy taking offence at what they THINK they

read, they didn't actually read the article or the replies.

 

-Rob

[Guest guest]

Actually...no. I wasn't equating being a fat vegan with wearing a clown suit to

court. Just giving another example of how presentation can affect the message.

 

To what extent does McDougall " turn people away from veganism " as you state? Do

you have any evidence of this? Are you going to stop being vegan because you're

offended by his article? If you were to look at the facts, you'd see that many

meat eaters have switched to a healthy vegan diet through his program. You call

his article " offensive and ridiculous " , but I can't help but wonder are you

offended by what he wrote or by your interpretation of it?

 

-Rob

 

 

 

 

 

Laura Beck <LBeck

soy boy <soyboyincali

Cc: " "

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 9:49:55 AM

RE: Appearance and Advocacy

 

Had a hard time reading your responce because of the bizarre font and color

choice. Maybe if you're worried so much about appearance and looking

professional, a legible font would help

 

Agreed that a good debate is fun and necessary for expanding thought and I

really hope this conversation doesn't cause anyone to abandon the fabulous SF

Bay Veg!

 

A couple quick things. When McDougall writes about the unacknowledged setback,

it's basically telling fat vegans that they are doing harm to themselves and the

message of veganism. That is not okay. I don't care how callous McDougall is in

the rest of his proselytizing (except to the extent that he turns people away

from veganism, that sucks), this article is offensive and ridiculous. Plus, the

girl in the stock photo shot that is used in the article isn't even fat! I

realllllly hope that girl never sees the article, I can't imagine what it would

do for her self esteem but I can imagine an eating disorder might not be far

down the line.

 

Also, equating being a fat vegan with wearing a clown suit to court? Dang.

 

Laura

[Guest guest]

I have been involved in the movement for over 20 years and this topic has always been part of the movement. Different people have different looks and may appeal to different people, e.g., a person in a suit may not appeal to a person who is a tatooed punk rocker and vice versa. My experience has taught me that it isn't the way an activist looks that turns people off but the way the activist presents themselves, i,e, friendly or angry towards prospective supporters. I have, many times, seen receptivity to my leafleting go down when my energy is not friendly. Animal rights activists are a diverse bunch and that is a good thing as we can appeal to different sectors of society. We can't change who people are and they way they choose to look, so I believe our energy is better spent trying to educate people about the way our society disregards the lives of other animals with the hope that people will change their actions towards other animals.

Pat Cuviello

[Guest guest]

Rob,

 

It's little wonder people take offense. From reading your email it could seem as if you're comparing people with weight issues or health challenges who want to effectively advocate for veganism to someone as silly and frivilous as to wear a bikini to a job interview or a clown suit to court. Why would ANYONE find that offensive?

 

To state the obvious - weight and health issues are NOT always a matter of choice - like your outfit for the day. They also are not as easily or quickly changed as a set of clothes.

 

Since vegetarians/vegans have long been unfairly stereotyped as weak, skinny to the point of unhealthy, thinned boned etc... I'm saddened to see that a number of people in the community either share or can "understand" a similar prejudice in the opposite direction.

 

While I didn't want to say this in my original post because it sounds egotistical and I didn't think it necessary to make the point - I will say it now. Fortunately for me and the vegan community my employer did NOT judge me based on my size (maybe becauses I didn't wear a bathing suit but I still don't see how that applies). I work at a large animal rights organization where I head up development. I have raised in excess of 1.5 million dollars just since Jan. to further animal rights and vegan causes, often with direct contact with donors, -- 85% of every dollar going directly into multiple campaigns (not all vegan related but many). I would argue that alone makes me as effective, if not more effective than many "skinny=healthy" people who would question whether or not I'm effective based on my size.

 

With that said I wish you all well - I'm going to quit monitoring this list now and this incredibly sad and frustrating debate and I'm going to go back to doing things that actually are making a difference.

 

Peace,

Tim

 

 

 

steve; tammyCC: From: soyboyincaliDate: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:51:50 -0700Re: Appearance and Advocacy

 

 

 

 

 

On Jul 6, 2009, at 9:31 PM, Tammy, BAVeg wrote:> > "this email is obviously directed at some members who I didn't > bother to name - and the author of the heinous article that started > this discussion.">> The author of the original article that started the whole discussion > ("fat vegans") is Dr. McDougall. As far as I know, he is not on > this list and would not be aware of how his viewpoint is being > received.Perhaps you could invite him to join the list and participate in the discussion. Dr. McDougall is based in Santa Rosa, so he would certainly not be out of place on an SF Bay Area based veggie list.

 

A few comments about this whole debate:

This is just a wild guess on my part, but from past experience, Dr. McDougall isn't concerned about offending anyone, vegan or otherwise. If you've ever heard him speak, you probably know that he's not out to win any popularity contest. In one presentation, he started out by lumping vegans into various unhealthy categories, even including raw foodists for good measure-and this was at a vegetarian event. It seems that his perception of vegans is that of people who are more concerned about animal's welfare than their own welfare.

If you get his newsletter or have read his books, you've seen that he doesn't use the term vegan too often when describing his approach to diet. He usually refers to it as a starch based plant foods diet.

Living in the vegan friendly bay area, it's easy to forget that the word vegan still has a stigma attached to it. There's a reason why Millennium and many other vegan restaurants promote themselves as vegetarian rather than vegan. They know they'll bring in more customers that way, including meat eaters who might not walk through the doors if they knew it was vegan.

It comes down to presenting yourself in the best way to achieve your goal. McDougall never suggested "Self Censorship" as one person put it, nor did he say that fat vegans shouldn't advocate veganism. Here's what he wrote:

"Fat vegans, however, have failed one important animal: themselves. Furthermore, their audiences of meat-eaters and animal-abusers may be so distracted by their appearance that they cannot hear the vital issues of animal rights and the environment; resulting in an unacknowledged setback for a fat vegan’s hard work for change."

There's a reason you don't wear the same clothes to a job interview that you wear to the beach. It's all about perception. Like it or not, many (or most) people judge others based on appearance. For many people, fat=unhealthy. So if someone who is perceived as unhealthy says "eat vegan like I do", the reaction might be along the lines of "eat the way you do so I can be unhealthy too?" When you're attempting to persuade someone to do something, presentation counts. If you don't believe it, show up in court wearing a clown suit the next time you go to fight a traffic ticket.

Having said all that, I'm NOT remotely saying that vegans should be one size fits all. Our differing backgrounds, ethnicities, sexual orientations, body sizes and opinions are what make BAVeg such a vibrant community (and provides for some lively debate).

I have to wonder though, if we were all reading the same article. One person even went as far as to write "This article goes way beyond that though, blaming fat vegans for their fatness and telling them they are not good enough to represent veganism." Really? I couldn't find that anywhere in McDougall's article. It seems like some are so busy taking offence at what they THINK they read, they didn't actually read the article or the replies.

-Rob

 

 

Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. Check it out.

[Guest guest]

Tim,I wasn't comparing people with weight and health issues to wearing a clown suit to court or bikini to a job interview. If that's how you read or others read it, then I understand why you'd be offended. I was simply (and apparently poorly) attempting to illustrate how appearance can affect effectiveness due to peoples perceptions. I agree, weight and health issues are not always a matter of choice. Yes, genetics and other factors play a part, but it isn't the whole picture. For many it IS a matter of choice. Fortunately, we live in a time and place where we CAN choose what we put in our bodies. I know that if I choose a soy hot dog for dinner tonight, I'm making a great choice for the animals, but a

bad choice for my body. If I choose beans and rice and veggies, I'm making a great choice for both. I believe that's the point that McDougall was making in the first place.-Rob Tim Woodward <trwoodward

 

Rob,

 

It's little wonder people take offense. From reading your email it could seem as if you're comparing people with weight issues or health challenges who want to effectively advocate for veganism to someone as silly and frivilous as to wear a bikini to a job interview or a clown suit to court. Why would ANYONE find that offensive?

 

To state the obvious - weight and health issues are NOT always a matter of choice - like your outfit for the day. They also are not as easily or quickly changed as a set of clothes.

 

Since vegetarians/ vegans have long been unfairly stereotyped as weak, skinny to the point of unhealthy, thinned boned etc... I'm saddened to see that a number of people in the community either share or can "understand" a similar prejudice in the opposite direction.

 

While I didn't want to say this in my original post because it sounds egotistical and I didn't think it necessary to make the point - I will say it now. Fortunately for me and the vegan community my employer did NOT judge me based on my size (maybe becauses I didn't wear a bathing suit but I still don't see how that applies). I work at a large animal rights organization where I head up development. I have raised in excess of 1.5 million dollars just since Jan. to further animal rights and vegan causes, often with direct contact with donors, -- 85% of every dollar going directly into multiple campaigns (not all vegan related but many). I would argue that alone makes me as effective, if not more effective than many "skinny=healthy" people who would question whether or not I'm effective based on my size.

 

With that said I wish you all well - I'm going to quit monitoring this list now and this incredibly sad and frustrating debate and I'm going to go back to doing things that actually are making a difference.

 

Peace,

Tim

 

[Guest guest]

I'm not arguing on either side, and I have sent out an email before but I know this will end at some point and we are still having a debate but in this debate we need to stop taking favors, or insulting others. We are all part of and we all joined for a reason, and so we should all be hear to support each other and encourage each other. soy boy <soyboyincaliTim

Woodward <trwoodward; tammyCc: Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 2:35:17 PMRe: Appearance and Advocacy

 

Tim,I wasn't comparing people with weight and health issues to wearing a clown suit to court or bikini to a job interview. If that's how you read or others read it, then I understand why you'd be offended. I was simply (and apparently poorly) attempting to illustrate how appearance can affect effectiveness due to peoples perceptions. I agree, weight and health issues are not always a matter of choice. Yes, genetics and other factors play a part, but it isn't the whole picture. For many it IS a matter of choice. Fortunately, we live in a time and place where we CAN choose what we put in our bodies. I know that if I choose a soy hot dog for dinner tonight, I'm making a great choice for the animals, but a

bad choice for my body. If I choose beans and rice and veggies, I'm making a great choice for both. I believe that's the point that McDougall was making in the first place.-Rob Tim Woodward <trwoodward (AT) msn (DOT) com>

 

Rob,

 

It's little wonder people take offense. From reading your email it could seem as if you're comparing people with weight issues or health challenges who want to effectively advocate for veganism to someone as silly and frivilous as to wear a bikini to a job interview or a clown suit to court. Why would ANYONE find that offensive?

 

To state the obvious - weight and health issues are NOT always a matter of choice - like your outfit for the day. They also are not as easily or quickly changed as a set of clothes.

 

Since vegetarians/ vegans have long been unfairly stereotyped as weak, skinny to the point of unhealthy, thinned boned etc... I'm saddened to see that a number of people in the community either share or can "understand" a similar prejudice in the opposite direction.

 

While I didn't want to say this in my original post because it sounds egotistical and I didn't think it necessary to make the point - I will say it now. Fortunately for me and the vegan community my employer did NOT judge me based on my size (maybe becauses I didn't wear a bathing suit but I still don't see how that applies). I work at a large animal rights organization where I head up development. I have raised in excess of 1.5 million dollars just since Jan. to further animal rights and vegan causes, often with direct contact with donors, -- 85% of every dollar going directly into multiple campaigns (not all vegan related but many). I would argue that alone makes me as effective, if not more effective than many "skinny=healthy" people who would question whether or not I'm effective based on my size.

 

With that said I wish you all well - I'm going to quit monitoring this list now and this incredibly sad and frustrating debate and I'm going to go back to doing things that actually are making a difference.

 

Peace,

Tim