Five feminist reasons to not eat meat I've read Fairfax writer Alecia Simmonds" article twice to check for the slightest sign - other than the sheer loopiness of the arguments - that it is satire rather than serious. But, alas: Here are five reasons why feminists should try to eliminate meat: Eating meat is associated with male power in its most vile and repugnant forms... In rejecting meat, feminists â both women and men â are rejecting a potent symbol of patriarchal power. The ill treatment of animals makes the abuse of women tolerable. Following on from my first point, if men get to eat the meat, then women, alas, are consigned to the less savoury role of being the meat. A woman can be hunted like a "bunny" and pursued like a "vixen" or "fox." Women exist as prey... When women are likened to animals it means that they exist as objects to be possessed and consumed. Vegetarians, like feminists, care about language. Violence is made possible through euphemistic or derogatory words that distance us from the feelings of the victim. Just as calling a baby cow "veal" makes it more appetising, so too does calling a woman "slut" make it easier to abuse her... Feminists have also spent decades explaining that rape is violence, not sex. Feminists and vegetarians share a common project of ending discrimination based on arbitrary distinctions. We are all, at our base, animals. So why should one animal species be outside the realm of our compassion?... Feminists and vegetarians believe that the personal is political. Just as we tell male partners that the minutia of who unpacks the dishwasher each night really matters, so too do we need to remind ourselves that what goes into our mouths also matters. Oh, my goodness. Prick with a Fork analyses the arguments and uncovers use of a dodgy survey. Other Simmonds opinions help to explain not just why Fairfax but our entire civilisation may be in decline - and why more than a decade at university can really stuff up your thinking and your prose. Simmonds shares "a teary, passionate love affair" with the earth - in this case a near barren part of Kimberley coastline selected for a $34 billion development - for which it "is worth breaking all the rules to defend." Simmonds believes choice and capitalism conflict with feminism: "Choice is the language of capitalism and individualism and as such sits uncomfortably with a feminism based on collective rights." Simmonds also opposes the right to free speech of people whose opinions she doesn't like. Not only can they be vilified, they should be jailed: "Imagine if Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt could be thrown in prison and charged money for vomiting venomous racist bile in public. Seriously... I think it's high time that Jones and Bolt were sent to the clanger, but for their misogyny as much as their racism. Simmonds suggests only snobs prefer to learn French or Italian to Walpiri, and are making choices that hurt locals: "I'm all for us being an outward-looking, cosmopolitan society that draws talent from around the globe. But it shouldn't be at the expense of people here. ... Why is speaking French or Italian any better than speaking Walpiri or Indonesian? Why do we lament not being able to find a good croissant outside of France but say nothing of the difficulties of finding tagine outside of Morocco? Simmonds herself does not speak Walpiri. So who is this person, so alarmingly keen to vilify and censor, so quick to assert the collective over the individual, and so slow to support the means by which we live lives comfortable enough to give windy lectures to a chop? Simmonds explains: Back in the late nineties, when raving meant dancing and sun-dried tomatoes meant culinary sophistication, I joined a group at university called âThe Activist Left. It was the obvious choice for someone who had spent their high school years weeping over woodchips. I believed another world was possible but had no faith in parliamentary reform. Revolutionary overthrow sounded infinitely more exciting ... I do believe I did detect the blight of a university education at the hands of the kind of people attending the Marxism 2013 conference (see post below). I do believe her writing places her squarely in a place and time - Australian universities teaching second-hand Derrida and deconstruction theory around a decade ago, with Greens rampant. Simmonds is not so much an individual but a cultural artefact, as instantly dated as Derrida himself. Now Simmonds despairs that the new "spirit-crushingly boring" generation does not share her instantly-outmoded concerns: All I know for certain is that there is nothing more tragic than a generation without spirit. Oh, but there is. It's a generation without brains.