Stephanie Ernst

Recent Activity

• 

  Stephanie commented on the article | almost 2 years ago

  A Fool's Errand (or, My Goodbye Post)

  I will be forever grateful that we were hired at the same time almost 2 years ago, that this space not only provided the opportunities that it did for a time, for both of us, but also provided me with the honor of getting to know you, of getting to call you friend. The anti-genocide movement and the world at large are lucky to have you. Your wide-ranging compassion and your dedication, intelligence, wit, eloquence, and more, even during exhausting times when something as basic as sleep seems a luxury, make you an incredible advocate. You have done wonderful work here. You will continue to do wonderful work elsewhere. Thank you, friend, on behalf of so many, for being who you are.

• 

  Stephanie commented on the article | about 2 years ago

  Bidding Change.org Farewell and Embarking on the New

  Friends, I don't have the words to express what all these kind, too-generous comments mean to me. You have filled my heart (and eyes) many times over, and I am overwhelmed. Thank you.

• 

  Stephanie commented on the article | about 2 years ago

  What If I Can't Afford to Replace My Wool Coat and Leather Shoes Yet?

  In response to the commenters who were offended by my post and its positions and who insist that everyone can afford to -- and must -- immediately replace all animal-based clothing:
  

   

  
  

  I find this incredibly arrogant and dismissive of the struggles some people really do have. I may personally not fall into the category of outright impoverished, but there *are* vegans who do. And there are vegans and potential vegans who *don't* own their own computer or have an Internet connection but go to the library to use a computer or to cafes to use the Internet on their old, cheap, hand-me-down laptop. There are people who have to decide which bills to pay each month, who have to decide between risking the power being shut off and cutting themselves down to one meal a day. There are people who find themselves with literally *no* money and no resources and no family to turn to for help.
  

   

  
  

  And how arrogant and classist for anyone to imply that these people don't exist or to insist that any "excuses" to not immediately replace everything are "weak." The message I was trying to get across is this: If, for example, *all* of someone's shoes and belts and bags and sweaters and coats and gloves from a previous period of life are made from wool, leather, and/or down, do we really, truly think that when that person is now struggling just to get by each month, he or she should be obligated to get rid of all those items at once and buy replacements all at once? Do we think people who are already struggling should feel that burden and be guilted that way just so that they can reach the level of immediate perfection some vegans demand they reach? Even from a thrift store, replacing a lot of things at once would add up for someone who literally can't even pay the bills. For that matter, why the assumption that anyone who currently has these things could indeed ever afford to buy new "fancy" pea coats or leather items? It's just as possible for people to have been given these things or to have purchased them from thrift stores to begin with.
  

   

  
  

  And frankly, those who aren't impoverished but who are struggling have to make difficult choices too. And if someone had to decide between, for example, (1) buying an inexpensive laptop and purchasing an inexpensive Internet plan to allow him or her to connect with the world during a hard time, to look for work, and to make a living and (2) buying all new-to-him-or-her sweaters, coats, scarves, gloves, boots, shoes, and belts, in order to immediately donate all of his or her animal-based clothing at once, I would have no problem telling that person to go ahead and get that computer and make #2 a slower process -- with the ultimate goal of being rid of all these things, yes, but with an understanding that not everyone can do (or has) everything.
  

   

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

• 

  Stephanie commented on the article | about 2 years ago

  Talk Show Hosts Who Know Nothing About Pit Bulls: Please Shut Up

  I'm trying very hard not to make fun of you for watching The People's Court regularly enough to know this. ;)

• 

  Stephanie commented on the article | about 2 years ago

  God Sent This Calf to Convince You to Kill the Others

  Jade, I think you misunderstood one part of Marji's comment. If you reread carefully, I'm sure you'll see that she's on the animal rights side of this. She was merely pointing out that it's true that some individual dairy farmers are dealing with economic difficulties.

• 

  Stephanie commented on the article | about 2 years ago

  Jane Goodall and Fundamentalism

  My apologies if I jumped, Stephanie. I hope you can understand why statements like this -- "it's worth getting a better understanding of what she stands for before you categorize her as the enemy" -- made me think you were directing the note at the animal rights advocates weighing in (most of whom, for what it's worth, likely wouldn't classify Jane Goodall as "the enemy," I imagine).

  
  

  Also for what it's worth, it's precisely because she's a role model that her inconsistencies are so frustrating, for me at least. Like I alluded to earlier, when she's lauded by many in the public as the ultimate animal advocate, yet she can't bring herself to abstain from the killing of cows, calves, hens, chicks, goats, kids, etc., what does that say to the public about those animals' worth? "Even Jane Goodall does this, so why shouldn't I?"

  
  

  I certainly don't see Goodall, someone I've long admired, as the enemy, but I do see her as someone who, with the simplest of personal choices, could do even more good than she's doing, but whose choices instead serve to further marginalize the planet's most exploited and abused animals -- and, in likely many people's minds, give others the OK to do the same.

• 

  Stephanie commented on the article | about 2 years ago

  Jane Goodall and Fundamentalism

  Furthermore, even if there were indeed times, when abroad, when sticking to a vegan diet would be prohibitively difficult, that doesn't explain why she can't be consistent and compassionate in her choices when she *does* have a clear and easy choice. The fact remains that she chooses to support the violent egg and dairy industries and doesn't make a conscious effort to avoid those things, or to advocate for the animals who suffer and die for those industries, even when she easily could. It's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that she doesn't claim to eat dairy and eggs only when her choices are limited; she supports those animal-abusing industries as a matter of practice.

• 

  Stephanie commented on the article | about 2 years ago

  Jane Goodall and Fundamentalism

  I'm not sure why there's a presumption that animal rights advocates aren't familiar with her work, her positions, and her diet. For many of us, such familiarity is why we get frustrated. You can admire someone's work and admire someone as a person without agreeing with all her positions and while wishing she'd be consistent.

  
  

  For my part, I didn't say she doesn't advocate for some farmed animals -- I said she isn't consistent in advocating for *all* animals, and she isn't. Nor do I buy the "she goes places where she couldn't be a healthy vegan" argument, frankly, when there are indeed other people who manage to do the same kind of travel (or live in the same kinds of places) without reliance on animal products.

  
  

  And this is a straw man: "Jon Stewart won't stop eating hamburgers because he's yelled at or told that he's immoral." Animal rights advocates wishing Goodall would be consistent and consistently compassionate isn't the same thing as saying we wish she would yell at people. It's not either-or. You can be gentle and kind and respectful and still be consistent. She is the former. She is not the latter.

  
  

  I respect Jane Goodall, as do many. That doesn't mean we can't wish for more from her.

• 

  Stephanie commented on the article | about 2 years ago

  Jane Goodall and Fundamentalism

  Jane Goodall has done a lot of fine work in the world, and there is much to admire about what she's done, but there's nothing wrong with wishing she would extend her compassion to all animals, including the cows, calves, hens, and chicks who suffer immensely and die en masse for dairy and eggs -- and the wildlife who suffer and die b/c of the dairy and egg industries too -- and explore going vegan. Supporting and funding the suffering and slaughter of animals isn't an act of living in "peace and harmony with each other."

  
  

  The "fundamentalist/extremist" language is damn offensive. Are those who oppose all forms of rape or all forms of domestic violence and so on "extremists"? Wouldn't you consider it hypocritical and offensive if someone was lauded as an advocate for all women yet opposed the rape of 16-year-olds but not 40-year-olds, of Caucasian women but not women of color?

  
  

  Animal rights advocates aren't "fundamentalists" or "extremists" for wishing prominent animal advocates would extend compassion to all animals rather than just some.

• 

  Stephanie commented on the article | about 2 years ago

  The Mass Killing of Wildlife for Your Burger, Cheese, and Leather

  Furthermore, "I'll just pay more" isn't a solution to anything. I don't understand what you're envisioning here. 

  
  

  The raising and killing of tens of billions of our fellow animals annually isn't remotely sustainable; neither factory farms nor pasture-based systems are a viable solution. Both are a disaster. And unless you're willing to pay much, much more for the animals you do eat, as well as drastically -- drastically -- reduce your animal consumption, you're part of the problem, not the solution.