Deconstructing a Review of The Compassionate Carnivore

I guess I'm going to have to buy The Compassionate Carnivore and review it myself rather than continue to write about what a ridiculous notion it is and how delusional its author, Catherine Friend, is. I'll purchase it from Amazon, as authors get a minuscule amount of cash for each book sale, and I shutter at the thought of Friend profiting in yet another way from the exploitation and slaughter of sentient nonhumans. Maybe I'll read it at Barnes & Noble. I've never done that, but certainly plenty of people do, and now that bookstores have designed their spaces as reading-friendly, I assume no one would mind if I spent a morning reading an entire book that I don't want to purchase.

Roger Yates directed me to "How to Love Animals and Eat Them, by Tim Lott in the UK's Telegraph. Though deconstructing a review is a bit odd, there are a couple of points that are worth raising until I'm able to take notes on the actual text.

• I must admit to a juvenile satisfaction upon reading: "Anyone expecting a philosophical treatise will be disappointed. Friend's writing style is hokey and sentimental with lots of exclamation marks and use of the vernacular - 'whoa!' 'nope!' 'oooh'."
• "Central to her argument is that vegetarians do nothing to help animals because by 'leaving the table' they do nothing to ensure that the inhumane, non-sustainable factory farming of the big meat producers can be ameliorated by small farmers like herself." The book is a 300-page advertisement for exploiting and slaughtering sentient nonhumans. Whether the way she exploits and slaughters them is different from the way things are done in a factory farm is irrelevant to me. By leaving the table, contrary to what Friend apparently thinks, I'm saying no to "big meat producers" and Friend. I'm doing far more for animals than she is. In fact, she treats animals as commodities "produced" for profit and other gain (her palate--she likes to eat them), just like Jim Perdue. Catherine Friend=Jim Perdue in the only way that matters; she uses and kills them and doesn't need to.
• Lott for some reason calls Friend "admirably practical in achieving her goal (although purists might also see her as conveniently flexible in her principles). To be a compassionate carnivore, you don't have to cut out factory-farmed meat, you don't have to eat organic (her own small farm is humane, but non-organic) you don't have to shun conventional farming." Friend, therefore, demonstrates the strength of her convictions (that are full of holes) by saying you don't really have to follow them.
• You all are going to love this next one, and it's the main reason I want to read the book: "All you have to do is respect animals and be prepared to make a little effort to search for what Friend calls 'happy meat'." Friend calls it happy meat? That's a fascinating twist. That's like a PeTA member calling himself a "new welfarist."
• Here's where it gets a bit scary. Friend admits that the suffering of animals cannot be eliminated (because she isn't considering eliminating their suffering by not using them, I assume), and then Lott writes: "It would all sound a bit of a cop-out, if it wasn't so clear that Friend loves animals so much - to an almost nauseating degree, in fact." No matter what Friend writes in her book, there is a word for people who say one thing but do another: hypocrite.
• Lott writes: "She squares this to herself by two not entirely rigorous arguments. First, she likes meat so why shouldn't she eat it? Second, so long as the animal lives a reasonably healthy and enjoyable life no moral law is being contravened." Ah, we finally get to the crux of the matter. She likes the taste of the flesh and secretions of sentient nonhumans, and she's going to say and do whatever is necessary to make it all okay. I'd like to hear more about her "moral laws" and why what she does is acceptable. I suppose though she won't use the word, speciesism is the answer.
• The other reason I want to read the book is that Lott refers to Friend's suggestion to "cultivate some sense of sacredness about the animals you eat." I look forward to Friend invoking sacredness while she's writing about the unnecessary slaughter of beings she claims to love.

My brain hurts thinking about what Friend must go through each day. All of the cognitive dissonance. All of the lies. All of the rationalization. If she really respected the lives of the animals, she wouldn't have to write a 300 page defense. She'd just stop using and eating them, and her actions would speak for themselves.

Comments

[Alex]

I look forward to your deconstruction. Like Keith Olbermann and his efforts against Fox News, you can suffer the pain of directly experiencing the nonsense, etc. and then relate the important stuff back to all of us fortunate’s who don't need to suffer the harm first-hand.

[Deb]

What Alex said!

[Bea Elliott]

Mary.... if you must be a glutton for punishment - I encourage you to see this Canadian docu titled "Animals": http://www.blockbuster.com/catalog/movieDetails/211558
I sat through the whole of it (last night). I was certain that proper thought processes lead to proper conclusions - Wrong. I'm convinced now that people will justify thier meat habit even if they sacrifice their own code of "values". OOOPS! Is my misanthropy showing yet again?

[Bea Elliott]

..... and Erik Marcus posts this "happy" link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/nyregion/06bigcity.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[icare]

I was reading an article about her book in a health magazine today. I have to strongly disagree with the author - I think she has a screw loose or something. I am a vegetarian and became one because of ethical concerns. Her 'have your cake and eat it too' philosophy is despicable and rediculous. In the article, it had a photo of her holding 2 her sheep - I don't know one could cuddle with them and then turn around and kill them. How do people like this sleep at night? They must have a very cold heart - if they have any heart at all.

It's simple - if you love animals, you don't eat them. That's my 2 cents.

[Jovian]

Yeah, she's a lunatic. Here are some of my "favourite" excerpts: after dropping 'her' lambs off at the slaughterhouse, Friend "sat in the pickup and cried. My contacts blurred, my nose filled. Why did I have to face death so directly? Why did everyone else get off free, blissfully ignorant of the death that preceded their meat? I couldn’t stop crying. Huge, shuddering sobs. I was still crying when Melissa came out. She held my hand while she drove, and I cried all the way home” (32-33). So why does she do it if its so goddamn difficult for her? Three reasons: "First, I love meat... not to get all noble, but I believe raising food is an important responsibility, and one that I can fulfill" (33); second, its the most efficient way to "use" the land (33); and third, "because I love animals... [and] us animal lovers must find a way for the animals to earn their keep and contribute to the economic logic of the farm. One of the best ways to do this is to keep sheep or cattle or hogs, get 'em pregnant, then sell the offspring for meat" (34). And yes, the people who purchase that meat "won't have met the steer, nor scratched his head, nor watched his happy dances, but that's okay. We've done all that for them" (37). So its okay that everyone else who eats meat gets off free - Friend and others like her have suffered their sins, so we don't have to worry about it.

The most shocking part of the book, to me, is that Friend estimates that, most of the time, only "50% of my meals are made from happy meat, 25% are meatless, and 25% are from factory meat" (240). And it gets worse: "It does make me chuckle to admit that during crunch weeks of writing this book, I lacked the energy to cook... we ate nearly 75% factory meals and 25% meatless meals. I accept that there's a gap between my real and ideal, and just move on" (240-241). It makes her "chuckle"? She's a complete and utter hypocrite and all she can do is "chuckle" about it? But really, Friend writes, one can't be too hard on oneself: "There's only one rule to keep in mind as you approach the idea of becoming a more conscientious, compassionate carnivore, and here it is: the first being on whom you must practice compassion is yourself" (7).

This woman is absolutely insane.

[None Please]

I wonder what the purpose of deconstructing the review was. Was it to confirm your theories. Could the author have said anything or is the mere position offensive. In the Washington metro area, we have a BIG deer problem. I have a question for you, would you prefer to get shot by a compassionate bullet to the head,and be eaten by a lifeform that thanks god for you flesh and appreciates it. Or to get struck by an automobile, die slowly, of failing internal organs, and be unfit for human consumption.

We live our life by degrees, petro chemicals are animal products, those sentient? beings you now wear on your body and feed to your car. I was a vegetarian, no emphasis on the aryan, for more than ten years, I have started eating fish and game, stopped drinking milk, and never looked back. Cotton is bad for the earth, etc.

[Mary martin]

None Please,
The mere position is, in fact, offensive. And I also deconstructed the book here: http://www.animalperson.net/animal_person/2008/09/on-the-compas-1.html

The rest of your comment I will reply to in a post today, as it contains several points I have addressed in the past and would like to readdress.