1.0 out of 5 stars More than Disappointing---Frightening Jan 4 2012
By Alyce - Published on Amazon.com
Format:Hardcover
Under-researched, over-simplified, sentimental, often factually wrong, often tautological, etc. See Carol Adams's wonderful response to Rudy:
http://caroljadams.blogspot.com/2011/09/another-feminist-rationalizing-eating.html
On the University of Minnesota website, you can read even more misinformation by Kathy Rudy, such as her claim that animal welfare and rights organizations have too many rules and policies for people who care about animals to accept so they're turned off, and she repeats over and over variations on the theme that the major animal advocacy organizations alienate folks by requiring that their employees (and members) all be vegan. This is absolutely not true for major organizations like PETA, HSUS, ALDF, and ASPCA (can't imagine what other organizations she's referring to). Maybe Rudy should read PETA's employment section ("compassion" seems to be the main criterion). Building arguments on patently false information is deceptive and unethical.
Sorry, Rudy, but love is not the answer. Other preposterous claims: Taming wildlife as a way of loving animals? Zoos and confinement as an antidote to extinction? (Has she never read Zoo Underground?) Does she have statistics to prove that animal advocacy organizations have not made a dent in the tragic oppression of animals? (I have lots of evidence they have made more than a dent.) Veganism is too hard and expensive? (She tried it for a while, said it was too hard and so she gave up. Nota bene: it's very true that you can be a vegan and live on Oreos and Fritos corn chips and Vitamin Water. Fact is, as with any "diet," one has to eat broadly and well, stay away from processed foods, and eat "close to the source." Rudy offers no expert input into her dietary pronouncements , and relies strictly on her own apparently unsuccessful attempts, as proof that veganism isn't practical or healthy.)
Finally, maybe the most damaging aspect of her thesis is that people's behavior toward animals can't be changed through laws and activism, but instead people must learn to feel it in their hearts? (Shades of George Wallace?)
Am wondering where her editors were, and why they didn't catch such careless work or require support for her sweeping generalizations on such an important subject. As with her abortion book, her strategy is to stake out what she seems to think is a "middle-ground" position between two "opposing" and dichotomous views she claims to represent "both sides," and then proceeds to batter around her artifical "straw people" in order to make her case.
She is woefully under-read in philosophy, care theory, law, and activism.
No, loving animals won't save them.
Anyone else wonder if the "big names" blurbing her book didn't really read it??????
http://caroljadams.blogspot.com/2011/09/another-feminist-rationalizing-eating.html
On the University of Minnesota website, you can read even more misinformation by Kathy Rudy, such as her claim that animal welfare and rights organizations have too many rules and policies for people who care about animals to accept so they're turned off, and she repeats over and over variations on the theme that the major animal advocacy organizations alienate folks by requiring that their employees (and members) all be vegan. This is absolutely not true for major organizations like PETA, HSUS, ALDF, and ASPCA (can't imagine what other organizations she's referring to). Maybe Rudy should read PETA's employment section ("compassion" seems to be the main criterion). Building arguments on patently false information is deceptive and unethical.
Sorry, Rudy, but love is not the answer. Other preposterous claims: Taming wildlife as a way of loving animals? Zoos and confinement as an antidote to extinction? (Has she never read Zoo Underground?) Does she have statistics to prove that animal advocacy organizations have not made a dent in the tragic oppression of animals? (I have lots of evidence they have made more than a dent.) Veganism is too hard and expensive? (She tried it for a while, said it was too hard and so she gave up. Nota bene: it's very true that you can be a vegan and live on Oreos and Fritos corn chips and Vitamin Water. Fact is, as with any "diet," one has to eat broadly and well, stay away from processed foods, and eat "close to the source." Rudy offers no expert input into her dietary pronouncements , and relies strictly on her own apparently unsuccessful attempts, as proof that veganism isn't practical or healthy.)
Finally, maybe the most damaging aspect of her thesis is that people's behavior toward animals can't be changed through laws and activism, but instead people must learn to feel it in their hearts? (Shades of George Wallace?)
Am wondering where her editors were, and why they didn't catch such careless work or require support for her sweeping generalizations on such an important subject. As with her abortion book, her strategy is to stake out what she seems to think is a "middle-ground" position between two "opposing" and dichotomous views she claims to represent "both sides," and then proceeds to batter around her artifical "straw people" in order to make her case.
She is woefully under-read in philosophy, care theory, law, and activism.
No, loving animals won't save them.
Anyone else wonder if the "big names" blurbing her book didn't really read it??????
Jeez. The first blurb I saw was from Temple Grandin...uh oh...she's a sellout so that didn't look good. Then I saw Hal Herzog...that guy irritates me profoundly ... he's the type of fellow that makes me somewhat embarrassed for my field of psychology. Then...Marc Bekoff...for whom I have a great amount of respect. Hmmm...
ReplyDeleteCarol Adams occupies a place of serious respect with me too. Hmmm.
I don't know whether I'll read the book or not. Let's see...Marc for...that's 1. Hal and Temple for...that's 2 against. Carol against...that's 3 against. You against...that's 4 against and 1 for. Sounds like a thumbs down to me. I'm really too old to read something that isn't going to tell me anything new and is also going to irritate me. So...probably I won't read it.
Thanks for the info. :-)
Hahah! I was just about to order the book when I read the reviews on amazon! In fact, I had the link up on the blog before I uploaded the page; then I went to amazon to sniff around. Good grief!!
ReplyDeleteOh NO! Definitely not! This book is a waste of good rainforest trees! Better put to use in the head!
ReplyDeleteSeriously - Here's a couple of good reasons not to spend $, energy or time on this lame attempt at "Loving Animals": http://vegan.com/blog/2011/09/15/kathy-rudy-in-translation/
And if you can wade through this blog post you'll see among the comments that 99% of them would all vouch for the same verdict:
http://www.uminnpressblog.com/2011/08/with-veganism-and-animal-rights-causes.html
Honestly, I love the idea of open discussion - But here I think you'd just get frustrated and would waste your precious time. (imho)
Thanks for this Bea! It's a good press; I'm really surprised. Sort of.... Animals get crapped on in every direction....
ReplyDelete