Originally Posted by Sevenseas
I think her point was something different, about how some vegan arguments are misogynistic for "attacking the body" or whatever. That's what I find confusing.
I have no idea, honestly. There are two websites she links (Paleosister
and The Non-Practicing Vegan
) that talk about this; unfortunately, I can't find which exact post they talk about it in. But on one, I think it was Paleosister, she talked about the argument I was paraphrasing before.
It's a concept I don't understand particularly well, so sorry if I explained poorly. I'm more or less as confused as you are.
, based on how you explained it, is that veganism "attacks the body" because women go towards it as a way to break out of the patriarchy but end up feeling tied to it; if they return to being omnivores, which these people believe they will eventually do, then this vegan-feminism says they have failed and are subjecting themselves to patriarchy by eating meat. So I guess her point is that it's ok to be an omnivorous feminist, and to disagree with that vegan-feminist view? Don't quote me on it, though.
The nutritionist in IS's link makes the very opposite claim.
You're right; now that I found that link, it was a very good article.
Originally Posted by Indian Summer
I believe you might be thinking of a study (or rumors originating from that specific study) that focused on a couple of vitamins, but did not look at B12 and several others, and I don't think minerals were studied either.
Probably. It's something I heard a lot growing up, but it may well have come from that. Thank you for that link, by the way.
Originally Posted by Josh James xVx
Clarita, Vegans who don't supplement with B12 are playing a very dangerous game with their health.
Oh, I know. I take a supplement. I just meant that growing up, I'd heard that supplements weren't as good as the real thing - NOT that they were worthless.