(The following is an analogy, not a value comparison <3)
For the same reason meat eaters don't care about the rights on non-human animals. They profit from their ignorance.
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2026
59 points (100.0% liked)
WomensStuff
1347 readers
497 users here now
Women only trans inclusive This is an inclusive community for all things women. Whether you're here for make up tips, feminism or just friendly chit chat, we've got you covered.
Rules…
- Women only… trans women are women, and transphobic or gender critical talk isn’t allowed. Anyone under the trans umbrella (e.g. non-binary, bigender, agender) is free to decide whether a women's community is a good fit for them.
- Don’t be a dick. No personal attacks, no aggression, play nice.
- Don’t hate on groups, hatefilled talk about groups is not allowed. Ever.
- No governmental politics, so no talk of Trump actions etc. We recommend Feminism@beehaw.org for that, but here is an escape from it.
- New accounts or users with few comments may have their posts removed to prevent spam and bad-faith participation.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I've got another analogy: "for the same reason 99% of cis people are lukewarm allies of trans people on their best days - because it doesn't affect them directly and radical empathy is hard/exhausting."
Society grinds us all down and we barely have energy to fight our own battles. Add the fact that privileged groups benefit from the status quo and, well, it's easy to see how ignorance/cognitive dissonance is bliss for a lot of people. It's just so much easier than doing the work required to be a good ally.
"...they'll always tell you."
Are you in compliance with rule #1 of this group? (Asking, not accusing.)
Their post history is immediately /c/transgender and /c/transfem so I'm inclined to believe yes. What about their comment, aside from the fact that you appear to disagree that meat eaters benefit from the exploitation of non-human animals, led you to ask them this question? The point they make is a good one.
Thanks ❤️
You're so welcome girl, keep on doin your thing 💕
Reading the post history is coding masc over femme to me. Not solidly enough to accuse, but enough for me to ask.
Wait so you did read my post history and still asked? Wtf is wrong with you? Sorry to be this direct but can you honestly not see how fucking dysphoric that question is, especially when doubling down with this comment afterwards?
Just sad now, tbh.
Then read more.
Your questioning was an accusation. Don't do that without proof.
They have a comment in the first page of their post history that's "23 months on e"
Edit: I viewed their post history from your instance and that specific comment is only on the 3rd page, but there's still plenty of activity in transfem and womens' spaces (specifically womensstuff actually, telling a man they're in the wrong place!)
Z be careful with these kind of comments. You can always report a poster and we can look into it... don't want trans people to ever feel like they aren't accepted
As someone who eats the minimum nutritional requirement of low-impact meat products because I can't process veg protein: way to hijack a conversation about women's rights and make it about your own, misinformed agenda.
Thanks for the input! Can you tell me more, so I can learn?
Also, I think that's pretty accusatory language. I don't think having an "agenda" of wanting to cause as little suffering to animals (that includes humans) as possible is a bad agenda.
Edit: also I didn't hijack anything? Until you commented, everyone understood the core about the analogy and that this comment wasn't about making people go vegan.
"meat-eaters don't care about the rights of animals." That's accusatory, so I won't apologize for my tone when you set the scene.
Eating meat is not on the same level as recognizing women's rights to equality, the issues are separate with their own nuances and forms of abuse. Someone who respects animals is no more likely to respect women than anyone else, at least in my experience. That's what I mean by hijacking a conversation about one thing and making it about something else.
I don't want to go into my medical history suffice to say it was a long, shitty journey. I eat meat. I also donate to a no kill farm and a bird rescue and I was a vegan/vegetarian chef.
"meat-eaters don't care about the rights of animals." That's accusatory, so I won't apologize for my tone when you set the scene.
I mean yeah, I stand by that. The absolute vast majority of people are eating animals because of taste pleasure, not because they have to. Obviously you weren't addressed with that statement.
Eating meat is not on the same level as recognizing women's rights to equality
I don't know about "levels" but these issues are definitely intersectionally linked. I hope you don't deny that?
I don't want to go into my medical history suffice to say it was a long, shitty journey. I eat meat. I also donate to a no kill farm and a bird rescue and I was a vegan/vegetarian chef.
Huh, bummer. Would have loved to get the name of the condition or the mechanisms behind it. Not doubting you btw. genuinely interested.
I was included in that initial statement, you're just walking it back because someone pushed back. So no, caveats aren't obvious unless you state them. There are women in this community who eat meat, surely you were aware of that when you posted your comment.
Anti-feminist views and eating meat aren't linked. I'd love to see evidence if I'm wrong.
My dietary needs don't have a name that I'm aware of. A doctor, who I went to when I felt like shit all the time, said some people don't process vegetable proteins the same as meat, and there are varying degrees of it. I talked to a nutritionist, who was vegan, who agreed that was the case and helped me sort out what I needed. The ongoing flu symptoms, increased lack of focus and insomnia went away the day after I had some chicken (after I threw up from not having it for a while.) So I didn't look into it much further than that.
I once read about a link between needing meat and ADHD, but haven't researched it enough to deliver the details.
I was included in that initial statement, you're just walking it back because someone pushed back. So no, caveats aren't obvious unless you state them.
Here is another analogy. If I say that men are a problem, am I talking about the individuals that are actual allies? That have educated themselves on women's rights and liberation? It's the same here. When I say someone who can genuinely not survive without eating animals was not included, why not just believe that?
Anti-feminist views and eating meat aren't linked. I'd love to see evidence if I'm wrong.
Anti-feminism and anti-veganism are linked. One of those links is called toxic masculinity.
What kind of evidence would you like? What do you think would convince you?
some people don't process vegetable proteins the same as meat
I think I talked to someone before who described something similar. Wish I could remember what they named it.
The ongoing flu symptoms, increased lack of focus and insomnia went away the day after I had some chicken
Now clearly a doctor/nutritionist would have checked for that but my first thought was "When I went vegan I felt the same until I started eating more."
I once read about a link between needing meat and ADHD, but haven't researched it enough to deliver the details.
I have adhd and am vegan, so it's probably not that? Unless there is more than one way to "have" adhd I guess haha
If I say that men are a problem, am I talking about the individuals that are actual allies?
Yes, that's called a generalization and it's against the rules of this community. If you said men are a problem I would likely report your comment for sexism, as I have with others.
I do believe you're excluding me now, but I still disagree with your initial statement and believe it should be ammended.
I haven't seen any link between anti-feminism and eating meat. I trust peer reviewed studies with broad sample groups.
Plenty of research went into what and how much I should be eating before seeing a doctor. The link with ADHD was supposedly higher than average in the general population, and not a rule.
Unless there is more than one way to “have” adhd I guess haha
It's a spectrum for sure.
That’s certainly an analogy alright…
Let me explain why this analogy is utter shit.
First off like Wren made clear, some people have dietary restrictions that make consuming meat an essential part of them living a healthy life.
But there is far more to it than just that. There are religious, ethical consumption, and animal welfare components that should be examined before making an uninformed statement like that.
So let’s look at the animal welfare side of things. All ecosystems are made up of a variety of different species, everything from bacteria, fungi, plants, animals, and more make up pieces of an ecosystem. Looking more specifically at the animal kingdom there are herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores. Within this world there are predators and apex predators, who hunt and consume other animals to fulfill their own dietary needs. Sadly within some of these ecosystems predators and apex predators have been killed off by humans for one reason or another. Thus leading to ecosystem collapse as the species that were feed on over consume resources and overpopulated.
One way of curbing this issue is to reintroduce predators or for humans to fill that role. In plenty of areas humans keep an invaluable check on the wildlife populations by hunting and eating the animals. Because if the animal has to be killed to maintain a stable population, then why let good meat that can go to feeding other animals or people be let go to waste? But under what you have said you would argue that this is unethical and immoral.
Then there is livestock who are raised in a spacious farm, given a healthy diet and killed in as ethical a manner as possible. This meat is not produced on a factory farm but with real care given to the animals involved.
Lastly, we should look at the spiritual side of things. Where we shouldn’t be forgetting how in some cultures hunting and the consumption of meat plays a large role. Specifically in Native American (I know this term in loaded in its own right but there is no agreed upon term for the indigenous peoples) cultures hunting deer is a critical aspect of how men are supposed to be. And meat plays a part in their traditional food. So to blindly label meat and the consumption of it as bad, takes on a very racist undertone. It also ropes in the euro-centric thinking that led in large part to the destruction of these cultures in the first place.
And let me cut you off right there, no. There was no carve outs for any of these reasons in the original post. Not a single one, it was intentionally made to make anyone who eats meat under any circumstances feel bad. As well as highjack the conversation on feminism and feminist thinking, and to convert into a way to bash other people who are different.
Thanks for that.
You make a fantastic point with indigenous cultures as well, since a good portion of the meat I get is hunted deer.
Some tribes are dependent on hunted meat and the salmon run, particularly in fly-in reserves in the north where fruit and vegetables cost a small fortune and the growing season is short. It's important to keep these people in mind when disparaging eating meat.
Additionally, I recall having to cook for a camp in northern alberta one summer where the vegans cost more to feed than the meat-eaters, so I relied heavily on grains and beans. By calorie density, I wouldn't have had the space to cold-store all the fruit and veg I'd need if the whole camp was vegan. The kitchen already ran off a gas generator that burned day and night.
I’m sorry you have to deal with people like that, it’s not fair anyone.
Yeah, not all meat eaters! All diets matter!
edit to explain: The unfathomable and pointless violence that the meat industry engages in is normalized, just like the violence of patriarchy and white supremacy. Centering the small number of edge cases where these relations do not hold in a conversation about the mass violence of the dominant system is an attempt to rob the powerless of a voice.
You are right that the intersection of carnitarian minority cultures and the suffering of the animals they consume in the process is vulnerable, like an "all lives matter" protester is right that a white person's life matters too. If your only concern is cultural preservation then you're using culture as an excuse for violence against non-humans.
Look I get hating the meat industry, I despise factory farming too. It’s a brutal, and vile industry that needs to be regulated. But just blanket blaming everyone who consumes meat, and not giving them even a second of your time to understand why. Is. Just. Stupid.
Just cause you don’t eat meat, does not give you the right to blame others for doing so. I respect people who can and do eat vegan or vegetarian. My mom is one of those people, however the difference is; she does not go out of her way to bully and belittle others for not making the same decision. She’s an actual adult about it.
Like I already said, which it seems you never even read or just choose to ignore since it defeats your argument, some cultures eating meat is an aspect of it. Hunting animals is an aspect of their culture and cultural practices. We should not be saying their entire culture is evil because of that, and that they should abandon it since that is a racist and culturally insensitive.
Nor should we look down on people hunting animals in cases where that helps keep the population stable. By doing so we keep prey animals from over populating, eating up all the available resources, leading to their lives being worse. Eating the meat that results from this, is ethical since less animals suffer because of the selective culling of the population.
Or forbid someone, other than you, have a different diet that supports their health. Like another person wanting to live a happy and healthy life is the end of the world because their diet contains meat.
As for the whole “edge case” argument…
Are millions of people whose cultures have ties to eating meat an edge case? Do they and their lifestyles not deserve consideration? Do other people not matter?
And does managing the ecosystem not matter either? Do animals not matter? Cause if we full stop on responsible hunting and fishing billions of animals and plants will suffer needlessly.
Just like we don’t use napalm to trim a hedge, we shouldn’t blame everyone without thinking about all the possible consequences. It’s not fun but it’s the best way to not cause far more needless suffering.
I used logistics and food availability as an argument but I don't see you replying to me.
There are a lot of good answers here that expand on broader social problems, so I'll focus on reasons given by men in my life.
-
Equality is legally enshrined, therefore any women still complaining are just experiencing the same things as men and calling it misogyny
-
A litany of reasons men are unfairly treated as well, all real, but taken out of the broader context of how much worse it is for women.
-
Misogyny isn't real, people are just assholes.
-
There are a codified differences between sexes and therefore different roles we need to fill, stepping outside those roles brings depression and misery.
Adding one I've heard: women are capable of granting the gift of life, which is the greatest ability and brings the greatest sense of fulfillment. So it all balances out.
They honestly thought this was a good argument.
So we can do this amazing thing… and that makes it okay to treat us worse?
Dafuc?
lol I read this to my hubby and he said ‘that’s like one guy saying ‘horses shouldn’t be made into glue!’ And another guy going ‘but they can run really fast so it’s okay!’
What the actual fuck. No the fuck it does not
Equality is not legally enshrined everywhere.
To reiterate: These are reasons men have given me.
I think that many people (not only men) believed that having women's rights legally enshrined would be all that was required. You have the same rights now, so surely any failures must be because you're doing something wrong (like the whole bs lean-in idea).
The reality has proven to be far more difficult. True equality requires a fundamental shift in how society thinks about women, which requires effort from each individual.
Discovering and changing your internalised biases is hard work, the kind people often need therapy for. Having to do that when it means recognising and acknowledging your personal privilege is even harder. Add in pressure to fit in with your peers and it can quickly become something you'd rather just avoid. That's a very normal human reaction. In order to overcome this, women have had to basically scream each message from the rooftops until it finally sank in, and the internal changes started.
However, screaming things from rooftops means some people will feel bombarded, while others are likely exhausted, feeling like "I changed thinking x and y, what more do you want from me? I'm doing my best, why isn't it enough?", and, again, respond by avoiding the topic.
Tldr, it's hard work for no immediate benefit to the person doing the work, possibly even negative consequences socially. Who wouldn't want to avoid that? Also some people are exhausted from the work they've already done.
This is indeed another problem. Successful change tends to be incremental, but when dealing with social issues going "incrementally" basically leaves people in the dust.
There was a lot of bad blood over gay marriages, for example, in some gay/lesbian quarters when that hard-won right was finally achieved (though there's loads of signs of this backsliding now because ... well ... gestures vaguely in the direction of the world). After a major social bloodbath they'd finally accomplished a major goal only to get "sandbagged" (as they called it: their words not mine!) by the trans community basically saying, again from their perspective, "how dare you celebrate your victory when we're still in chains?"
And that's the problem right there. From a strictly analytical point of view, gay marriage was a HUGE victory for the progressive movement and an incremental change in the right direction ... but trans people were also right. Because people aren't statistics, and if the statistics show that things are "better" in some ways, the people who aren't in that "better" crowd are still suffering. And are rightly upset that, again from their perspective, it seems that their allies are ending the battle because they got what they wanted. The numerically smaller group is being asked, in essence, to act as triage. To act as cannon fodder and to be patient as they waited for their turn. This is profoundly unfair; it may also be profoundly necessary. (After all women started to get rights while queer society had to wait, right? Women got the vote before gay marriage was a thing.)
Fortunately that brief period of bad blood ended and we've kept up the pressure, but it highlights another serious problem: that exhaustion you mentioned. The battle is wearying and seems never-ending. Every time a gain is made here, there's either a falling back there, or a new battle to be fought in another place. People have limited energy (and that energy evaporates as they get older on top of that!) and at some point the question starts entering our minds: "What's the point?"
Now add in the fact that men aren't even really in the fight for women's rights. (SOME men are, but men as a whole are not.) They're viewing it as them giving things up. Many of them do it willingly. At first. But then, from their perspective, each time they do so, a new demand for them to give something up rises and ... well ... they get weary too. And unlike women, or LGBTQ+, racial groups, or ... they don't have a vested interest in effecting the change. (They view it as giving things up, remember! It's always been a struggle to present a positive face from progressive change to the dominant sector of society, even without the bad-faith blowback from those opposed to us.)
And I wish I knew how to solve that running out of steam and resentment at the never-ending struggle thing equitably. (I say this who's in the running out of steam stage herself.) I mean, using myself as an example, I could just stop and hand the reins off to the younger generation. But then I'm sitting here and seeing the younger generation make photocopies of every mistake my generation made (who ourselves made Gestetner copies of every mistake social activists made before us, who transcribed in monastic cells every mistake social activists made before them, presumably). This seems counter-productive. But I'm increasingly out of the energy needed to keep going on.¹ Maybe I should just step back and hope the generation after this one uses better quality paper and high quality laser printers to make their mistakes.
¹ Before anybody asks in private, no I'm not in a great place right now. And no I won't be sharing why.
Just dropping a comment to say I really enjoy reading what you write, ZDL. You have a way with words and your writing is clear and effective. I like getting a glimpse into your thoughts. Thanks for being a part of this space.
i agree
So I am a zillennial, and I have been noticing more gen z people that care about civil rights and social justice take a more intersectional approach and say things like a loss for one group is a loss for all. I also think it was more fostered by the social media environment on TikTok before 2025, and I know the majority of people will not care about anyone not like them with exceptions I guess for the times when there are no political or socioeconomic stresses or resistance to being empathetic. It feels like in my lifetime since the time I was a teen that we really made a ton of progress, while conservatives were building up their rhetoric. Now people are stressed, they're more closed off. The right in America is running this huge misogyny campaign, and I think a lot of people are eating it up out of a need for comfort or want to be taken care of in hard times. I remember seeing this study where they compared liberal and conservative temperaments and the conservatives were more fearful, and I also remember hearing that higher wealth inequality correlates with polarization. I think we are weirdly fortunate in this time with the conservative president being extremely unpopular. It leaves an opening for more grassroots left leaning candidates that, sure, talk to the majority first but can openly promise not to leave any one group behind. Especially with the queer, trans and feminist issues they really all are a struggle against patriarchy. And then racial and xenophobia issues are about hierarchies in general. Maybe it's just my bubble, but I notice a lot more young people are noticing these are all struggles with a common goal. I am scared for what happens when the selfishness and exhaustion kicks in. I also noticed a lot more women are collectively waking up to all the little forms of misogyny in romcoms or entitled behaviors or roles in the household despite both parents working. And I think more progressives are also recognizing how racial rhetoric is used to keep the poor poor and what the southern strategy was. It feels like things can be such a cycle in in different directions. Idk, maybe I'm just naive, but I think awareness is higher. Social media was huge opportunity. And even if it's skewed towards propoganda since Trump took office again, I think enough people know better. Everyone's upset. I'm honestly kind of holding my breath. Trump reshaping the supreme court in his first term was a huge problem, and in this presidency red states get a free pass to enact whatever they want. But I also see conservative voters splitting apart and losing faith after Trump screwed them too. I think moderates are looking for new positions, and left leaning voters have learned a lot about the issues and how they intersect. Sorry if this has been a little incoherent, these are just really uncertain times and I am pretty tired already. But I don't think it's remotely over yet, and we have a major opportunity to educate people looking for a better solution than giving in and seeking conservative comfort or some moderate that would keep the status quo.
This is probably my not-great place speaking here, so take it with a grain of salt…
…but…
…the flower children of the '60s and '70s became the yuppies and investment banking raiders of the '80s and '90s.
Wasn't it the promises of trickle down economics and libertarianism? Young people today are seeing what that got us. Most people are working 2 jobs just to get by and college is too expensive and student loans are a homelessness risk because there is no guarantee you will even get a job in your field when you graduate. Baby boomers reaped the benefits of the New Deal, built wealth and immediately stripped the new deal away. I think the ones that built wealth are too comfortable to notice, and trust whoever keeps their money growing at the expense of everyone they never talk to. Idk, maybe this is just going to be a cycle. I hate to think that we're going to have another new deal but with less racism this time and another wave of anti-trust and then my kids are going to be the ones pulling the rug from under people born three generations after them. Also I think the baby boomers just had large numbers, and that gave them a ton of voting power. So maybe the next people that benefit from reform will have to actually rely on this manipulative type of coalition rich people form with the prejudiced now. Or maybe the heritage foundation wants to strip reproductive rights away for multiple reasons and not just blind sexism. I really hope tackling things like systemic racism and the way that gets people who are poor and haven't confronted their own bias to vote against their own economic interests out of fear of an other, can break the power of generations born in good times taking advantage of it. And I am seeing young people at least for a moment here realize the scam because Trump has taken it to such a grotesque extreme. Idk, people are probably just self centered from the demands put on them by society. When something effects you it forces you to care. Education is going to be so important to break the cycles that keep happening and as long as people aren't radical there will always be a reason pushed to them, encouraging them to hate it.
Women’s rights are not even legally enshrined everywhere, including in the U.S.
Same reason so many white people aren't interested in minority rights, or rich people aren't interested in poor people's rights: it doesn't directly benefit them and at some level they understand many of their privileges require an underclass to support them. Giving women the tools, voices, and rights to contribute equally takes away men's control of women and access to free labour.
I think they don't think it affects their social freedom in ways too, or they subconsiously notice that they benefit from privilege, or some podcaster tells them feminism has gone too far because equality can feel like oppression. Some probably made the faustian bargain of being toxicaly masculine just for the power and that stops working if patriarchy crumbles. Honestly I think anyone of any gender can just get lost in the sauce of what everyone is taught, everyone's role and what we're all supposed to do.
I have a stronger take. I don't think most people, whatever their social group, cares about the rights of other groups.
In Canada we have the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) as an object lesson. The NAC was a powerful force in politics that forced things like better handling of the Canada Pension Plan for women who left employment to rear children, larger and sharper teeth for the laws against workplace harassment, and the specific inclusion of women's rights in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As it grew in power and influence, it started to grow in diversity as well. Queer women, women of various ethnicities, etc. were brought into the fold ... and then promptly ignored or even steam-rollered over by the white, middle-class majority of the NAC. Their stated policy at one point was that they were working for all women and only policies that impacted all women were worth fighting for. The fact that, say, black, Asian, or most especially, native women had issues that differered from the issues white middle class women faced was ignored or, sometimes, even derided as unimportant. The constant infighting this engendered made the group lose its political impact to the point that when the government pulled the plug on its funding it was really a(n unintentional) mercy killing in disguise. (Unintentional in that the intent was to kill the group; the mercy was unintentional.)
So here we had one of the most powerful voices for women in any country on the planet torn up from within because it was created by and dominated by middle class white women who absolutely did not care (for the most part) about the issues facing, say, native women. Native women were getting killed. White middle class women were getting lower salaries than me. Both are problems, but one seems just a wee tad more important than the other to me. (But what do I know? I'm not white so my opinion didn't count. Yes there is lingering bitterness. Does it show?)
You can find this story again and again all over the place. The strongest anti-immigration voices in Canada with each wave of new immigrants was ... ... the previous waves of immigrants. Ukrainians didn't want Italian immigrants. Italian immigrants didn't want the Russian Jews. Russian Jews didn't want the Ethiopians. Ethiopians didn't want the Iraqi nor the Iranians. And so on and so on and so on. Each group seems to be laser focused on itself only and genuinely doesn't care about other groups.
Men not caring about women's rights is just part and parcel of that same element of terrible humanity. Everybody cares about the in-group. Nobody (statistically speaking) cares about the out-group. Hell, even the so-called "Zoomers" who claim to be anti-bigotry of all kinds ... are intensely ageist. There's always the in-group and the out-group, even among those who most loudly proclaim their universality.
Does this mean we should give up? HELL NO! I'll take a page from The Who here and say "we've launched the revolution, 'history ain't changed', so pick up our guitars again and launch the next!" Human behaviour is a shit stain on morality. But shit stains can be brushed out with effort. The darker elements of human nature can be slowly removed from the fabric of society.
I would like to add a very simple reason that, is kinda brought up by eveyone here, but just from a personal pov.
Men are raised in a way where they are taught to not believe women.
It's even sadder because I will say this, and men will read this, and they will say "thats not me, I believe women." and then will continue going on not realizing they do not believe women.
Its a very subtle thing, its not like their parents say "women can't be trusted." Its culture and habit and small differences in the way boys and girls are treated growing up, and who knows what else.
Because the system works for them, as-is.
Control. They dont want women to have power to say no.
I was until I was told I am guilty because I am a men. Now I can just accept the fight and I have penis.
I was fighting on every account but now I feel woman don't want equality they want more.
Maybe you don't understand women's rights because your reading comprehension is shit.