Sarcastic, feminist, and incredibly opinionated. I guess that's how I would describe a lot of what I read in "The Vegetarian Myth". If you want to get anything valuable out of this book, you have to be able to look past a lot of the seemingly extreme things the author says. There were times when I just wanted to dismiss the whole book because the author just came across as so bitter and opinionated. Still, the author does bring up a lot of good points about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of vegetarianism and vegan-ism. She also shares her own experience of being a vegan for so many years and the sickness and health issues that she dealt with during that time. She offers a very interesting perspective on the world and how to solve its problems. Namely, she states three ways in which we can all help: 1. Don't have children2. Don't drive3. Grow your own foodShe talks about how it is ridiculous to not eat animal products when you consider the process of life that occurs in nature. Of course, the CAFO industry is not a good source of those products. She does make that clear, but she doesn't talk about a more sustainable method to feed the world. She only points out that we simply have too many people on the planet right now. To the author, this is the fundamental problem that we can't get around.One issue that I have with this book is that the author uses a lot of citations from other health books instead of referencing the original source material. This happens often enough in other health books, but this author does it continuously. For example, one reference will be Colpo p 19, then the next ones will be p 34, p 50, p 55, etc. This could go on for quite a while, and it makes hunting down the original information tedious. I had to purchase several other books just to get the references the author cites in this one. I don't think following the reasoning from one book and then citing it in order is good research methodology. Anyway, the book has definitely provided some food for thought, but I had a hard time taking the author and this book seriously. This book was no doubt written with the caps lock literally on and plenty of literal pounding on a mechanical typewriter. To sum it up, when the revolution comes, the soy eaters will be the first up against the wall. Then the grain eaters. Then the industrial food supporters...no, wait. The whole world is going to be up against the wall. So scratch that. We're all dead. Buy this book to find out why.As many readers have noted, this book has issues--problems with tone, organization, questionable arguments, odd psychological undertones/overtones, sentimentality that would make even Charles Dickens cry, quasi-scientificated (yes--I am allowed to make up entirely localized vocabulary) pseudo hype mixed with anecdote, panic with a twist of angry revolution, screaming mixed with long accusing stares, and so much more. I personally believe this book killed John Lennon. And possibly Vladimir Lenin as well (John's older brother who never got to be a Beatle and who suffered from an inability to correctly spell his own last name). In the end, this book would probably have been expressed best as a simple hand gesture.So, why do I give it two stars? Because, I think this book could be used in a classroom setting to get people to compare and contrast this kind of writing and the various ways it mimics what we know as good writing. Here are some basic questions:1) How is this book like Fox news? 2) Using the Greek myth of Cassandra show how this book undermines ideas and arguments that may be true or have some truth to them.3) Compare and contrast the style of this book with something written in a more "normal" style--say, with a book by Michael Pollen or by Frances Moore Lappe. Is there anything this book is able to do that those books cannot? What freedoms does this book have that others do not? 4) What is good about this book? Or to say it another way--if you were challenged to write 10 things that are positive about this book, what would you say?5) Try and diagram the interlocking hierarchies that the book is arguing against.6) Which is more effective, a condom or this book? Discuss.
What do You think about Vegomyten (2009)?
Puts to rest the notion that eating only plants is morally superior, since agriculture itself destroys topsoil and requires massive amounts of fertilisers to sustain itself, which will run out when the fossil fuels run out. Calories of oil for calories of grain.Interesting premise that imperialism arose due to the populations of once-great civilisations expanding beyond the land's carrying capacity, requiring tribute from its colonies to be sustained.Every hen one buys requires that a rooster eventually dies, since the sex ratio is 1:1, but only hens lay eggs. (p.65)The monocrops (grains like corn, wheat) benefit from being farmed so extensively, since they cover huge portions of land. Being adapted for agriculture was probably the best thing that happened to them. Also, they apparently produce opioids, which make them mildly addictive. Grass-fed animals are superior to grain fed animals in terms of health and nutritional value, but they grow slowly, and don't fit the factory farming model.Agriculture was not so much about food, as it was about the accumulation of wealth, which established a social hierarchy which has existed ever since. Slaves are needed to grow the food, soldiers are needed to defend the surplus stores,which is needed to feed the army..Apparently, fat isn't the villain modern health has made it out to be. Its carbs. Its just that there are so many conflating factors its been disguised. Modern lifestyle diseases present themselves when cultures switch over to a western diet. Cholesterol isn't a bad guy, either.And soy isn't the miracle food big agra makes it out to be. And it used to be used as industrial glue. I am now skeptical about soy in general.The meandering narrative of the book is off-putting at times, but the message gets through.
—jd8a
This started out pretty good, but lack of purpose and close-mindedness shone through most of the second half of the book. People tend to not eat or use meat products for a variety of reasons. It seems like a large undertaking to try to convince all of them that they're wrong. I think that the author went about it the wrong way in some parts. She had her own issues with eating vegan, but she never presented her actual diet: just that it didn't work for her and she had myriad resulting health issues. This doesn't mean that all vegetarians are malnourished and will undergo the same problems that she did. "Grains bad, meat good" is not a comprehensive argument. Also, her feminist bent didn't really fit in with the subject fo the book. In the last chapter, we're treated to a philosophical treatment about, I don't know, masculine domination and appropriation and its direct contradiction of feminine nurturing. I don't know how much this has to do with the main point of the book, that meat can and should be raised or hunted responsibly for the betterment of the planet and our own bodies. It seemed tacked on to appease the author's ancillary interests. In total, interesting first half, disappointing second half.
—jillybean
Amazing book, she writes lyrically and speaks harsh truths with beauty. I will re-read this book.
—RainBowz17
