The very depth of Adams' convictions about vegetarianism interfere with her ability to make a convincing argument to the skeptical. Quoting people who agree with her does not in and of itself prove that she is right - it only helps if they are making good arguments. But they seem so right and so obvious to Adams that she simply throws them at the reader. If the reader already agrees with her, this no doubt seems very eloquent, but if the reader doesn't, particularly if he/she has already thought about the issues, they are meaningless. She seems to have no idea how the omnivorous reader thinks, and therefore might be persuaded. Anyone making an argument that meat-eating offends god or the natural order would have to offer me a convincing explanation for the existence of carnivores and omnivores other than human beings. The usual argument that they are animals and have no choice makes no sense. If God disapproved of meat-eating, vegetarianism would be the default.

The attempt to equate meat-eating and white racism is beneath contempt and displays an incredible (willful?) ignorance of how other people live.

One unintended bit of humor is Adams' constant reference to "savory vegetables." Everyone I have quoted that to, included one vegan, thinks that is an oxymoron.

I also wonder about Adams' grasp of reality: she seems to confuse fiction with real events and to overrate the value of words. This seems like a classic case of the ivory tower. She offers quotes from novels as one might offer historical events. Adams repeatedly cites an obviously beloved scene where a vegetarian is, for some no-doubt bizarre reason, celebrating Thanksgiving with a very hostile host who not only insists upon putting meat on her plate, but pours gravy over her vegetables. I gather that it does not occur to Adams, as she enjoins vegetarians to rebuke meat-eaters, that we would find that as objectionable as the fictional character finds her host's behavior. I suspect that Adams has lost her hold on the distinction between defending the right of vegetarians to eat as they please (in which I would support her) and harassing other people who don't share their beliefs. Anyone taking the latter authoritarian stand will have to offer me a convincing, entitling authority.

I'll mention one last thing that bothers me about this book. Feminists, in their tendency to view their set of beliefs as a seamless garment, often argue that their other causes are an inherent part of feminism, which burdens feminism by making it more exclusionary. I don't often hear people making the opposite argument and burdening their other causes with feminism. Adams argues that vegetarianism should be considered an intrinsic part of feminism. Does she argue that feminism is an intrinsic part of vegetarianism? Does she tell vegans that they can't really consider themselves to be vegetarians if they don't support feminist issues? ( )

A bit of a polemic, but nevertheless quite good and thought provoking. I read this a long time ago; I think in 1992, and it had big effect on me. I had been a vegetarian already for 4 years, but this book helped me better articulate some of the reasons behind my decision. ( )

An absolutely fascinating book. Carol J. Adams outlines in detail the intricacies that connect feminism and vegetarianism. She makes many strong arguments. Very well planned and thought-out. An enlightening volume.

Experiments in Reading ( )