Are militant vegans good for the veg*n community?

There seems to be no consensus about whether militancy "works."

The consensus would be as close to 100% as matters against militancy being effective, Joe.

That's mainly because as close to 100% of people as matters regard militancy as only starting at one step further than they, personaly, have the balls to go.
 
The consensus would be as close to 100% as matters against militancy being effective, Joe.

That statement contradicts the biographical material on Ms. Pankhurst that I cited. She had one daughter writing a book castigating her, another daughter writing a book lauding her. Biographers split on whether her actions helped or hurt the cause of women's suffrage.
She has remained a figure of continuing controversy, which she would not be if there were a concensus.

That's mainly because as close to 100% of people as matters regard militancy as only starting at one step further than they, personaly, have the balls to go.

I'm not sure I understand that sentence. But in the case of women's suffrage in the UK, when the suffragists presented their case to Parliament using more conventional means, they were ignored. While I would not ordinarily countenance the means they later resorted to, it seems within reason that when you are just flat-out ignored, your tactics escalate.
 
I'm not sure you can make people care about animals.
Women make up around fifty percent of most populations, and women are likely to care about them selves, so does it really compare well?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dedalus
And yet, when it comes to escalating pro-vegan tactics, the majority of vegans seem quite strongly opposed.

OK, that may be true, but it presents a different problem or issue. I don't see anything in the definition or history of veganism necessarily committing vegans to democracy. So, who necessarily cares what a majority of vegans think about tactics?

Perhaps a prime example is Ingrid Newkirk of PeTA. She's going to do what she wants to do; she's not going to "take a vote" even among the PeTA membership. For example, Ingrid Newkirk sent a stripper to Nashville to carry a sandwich board sign protesting fur. She was naked to the waist and this made all the local newspapers. Did Ingrid bother to consult with or even inform any of the local Nashville vegetarian organizations? Hell, no.

Going back to the suffrage example, many of the more extreme acts were done by particular women, and then Ms. Pankhurst merely said that now that the deed was done, she approved of the actions.
 
I'm not sure you can make people care about animals.
Women make up around fifty percent of most populations, and women are likely to care about them selves, so does it really compare well?

CG brought up the analogy to the suffrage movement (much more violent in Britain than it was in the US). No analogy is perfect, but I thought this one was potentially informative. If you have a better one, please bring it forth.

BTW it is not clear that if there were some sort of public opinion poll in Britain before the grant of suffrage that a majority of women would have been for it.

ETA: Carol Adams also discussed the movement for animal rights in relation to the suffrage movement in her book The Sexual Politics of Meat.
 
And yet, when it comes to escalating pro-vegan tactics, the majority of vegans seem quite strongly opposed.

I will probably regret trying to get any sense out of you but what are pro-vegan tactics? How do you use them and how do you escalate them?
 
I think it's possible to be a very nice militant vegan. :)

And by that, I mean one can be consistent and determined without being a jerk about it to other people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots and KLS52
The problem I see with this question is that in many discussions I see the term "militant" and "self-righteous" vegan is bestowed upon those who point out that people are - of course - free to "sometimes" consume non-vegan birthday cakes, honey, eggs from happy rescued hens, shellac covered gummi bears and whatever ... but that they should then not refer to themselves as vegans if they do it consciously, repeatedly and deliberately.

This is seen by many, I have to say, as "being a jerk about things".

Why can those promising animal-lovers not happily engage in non-vegan activities now and then, but still keep the shining "vegan" badge?
 
I'm happy to describe myself as a vegetarian, but it doesn't reflect what I eat or want to eat. Put that on a hospital form, and you are going to get cheese, cheese, cheese and egg.......
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLS52
I'm happy to describe myself as a vegetarian, but it doesn't reflect what I eat or want to eat. Put that on a hospital form, and you are going to get cheese, cheese, cheese and egg.......
Yeah, there is a huge gap between vegetarian and vegan and people in that gap have nothing to select on forms, etc. But I find that most organizations don't support vegan options, just vegetarian, so it doesn't make much difference.
 
Yeah, there is a huge gap between vegetarian and vegan and people in that gap have nothing to select on forms, etc. But I find that most organizations don't support vegan options, just vegetarian, so it doesn't make much difference.

I think hospitals generally do, in the UK; even prisons I think.
 
I think hospitals generally do, in the UK; even prisons I think.
Can't say anything about prisons but from my experience with hospitals here is that they aren't good about it....but they don't seem to be very good with vegetarian either. They have the option....but the meals aren't well balanced. Then again....maybe the regular meals aren't either? But I had in mind schools, general events, etc as well.....often there are vegetarian options but not vegan ones.