You Can Disagree With Me, But Don't Call Me Angry, It’s Sexist and Demeaning

As I wrote about before, women are often unfairly labeled for having strong opinions.

Sometimes I get called names simply for having unpopular views. Instead of arguing on the merits of the issue, I am called “angry, “bitter”, “negative” and even accused of having some “personal agenda” for simply calling out what I consider to be BS.

Last year, I posted an article to LinkedIn about how I dislike the phrase “alternative proteins” because it greenwashes biotech and supports the meat lobby. The phrase was becoming ubiquitous in “food tech” circles, but it makes no logical sense to anyone who understands food on a deeper level.

While many comments were supportive, those that were not stood out for ignoring the substance of my argument and instead took aim at my “tone” and accused me of having ulterior motives.

I was accused of “spewing vitriol and disdain” and “lobbing one-directional ad hominin attacks” while having some personally-motived political agenda, but to what end, the commenter did not elaborate.

Another commenter said I was “bitter”, also a sexist word. Apparently, a strong woman with a different view of things is not allowed to speak her mind.

Over the past year of my posting numerous articles, and especially since writing for Forbes, the sexist interpretations of my motivations and emotional state have continued.

On a recent LinkedIn post I was accused by a complete stranger of having some hidden personal agenda when I called out a biotech company for causing confusion by describing its products as “plant-based” when they are using synthetic biology. But again, when pressed no details were offered.

It’s amazing what some people can claim to know about you and your personality.

Just this week on Twitter I was called angry by the CEO of the biotech fish company Finless Foods because he did not agree with the recent article I wrote for Forbes in which I argued that venture capital money would be better spent on agriculture policy instead of the vaporware that is cell-cultured meat.

We started out discussing how money gets allocated by VCs (so far so good) but quickly, the discussion took a dark turn where I was told:

Policy is an important component of curbing meat consumption, I don't think anybody would argue with that, but I would argue it is unhelpful to take your anger out on our industry because you feel underfunded. The investment capital was never going to an NGO in the first place.

OK so let’s unpack this part: “it is unhelpful to take your anger out on our industry because you feel underfunded.”

First, why assume that I am angry? Nothing in the tone of my article suggests that I am angry. I am simply making an argument. One that goes against his company’s agenda to raise more money from VCs, so maybe that’s the problem?

Next, he says not only am I angry, but I am taking it out on his industry of cell-cultured meat. Why am I doing this? Because he says, I “feel underfunded”. So that’s two accusations of using emotions to make my point. I am angry because I feel underfunded.

The funny thing is I am not in any position to be on the receiving end of VC money. I do not work for any NGO, so I don’t even know what he’s talking about. Again, just more assumptions being made about my motivation and here, he could have easily fact checked that assumption.

We can discuss the logic inherent in my article, but why surround a legitimate discussion with words like “anger” and “feel” and make up an entire scenario about my motivation that not only is presumptuous and condescending, but does not even apply to me?

Similarly, in response to a podcast interview I did recently on cell cultured meat, I was accused on Twitter of having “railed against everything and everyone she opposes, and offered zero productive suggestions for how we move forward.”

OK more to unpack. According to this site on idioms, the phrase “railed against” means “To protest, criticize, or complain angrily about someone or something.” There is that word again, angry. Here, I was apparently angry because I strongly expressed an opinion that is contrary to most other guests on this very pro-biotech meat podcast. If this listener was used to hearing a lot of happy talk from guests on this show, then yes, I was different, but that does not make me angry or “railing against” anyone.

As for alternative suggestions, I am very consistent: industrial meat production is caused by political and hence requires a political solution. This same person twisted that position by claiming I was calling for “a grassroots, anti-capitalist revolution.” This is another way to dismiss my views, to make me sound radical. 

It does not seem to matter that I have spent my entire career calling out BS in the food industry. It’s not that hard to look at my background, read my other articles (recent or from the past) or listen to my many podcast and radio interviews to get a deeper understanding of my position and views.

I have been in the food movement for over 25 years, studied molecular biology in college, and have graduate degrees in law and public health. I wrote an entire book about food industry propaganda and have written countless articles and reports on the subject, covering everything from GMO labeling to junk food marketing to children.

I could go on to attempt to “prove” my credentials, but I shouldn’t have to. I understand that this is the state of social media these days, but many of the people reacting to me do have some clue as to who I am, and still choose to make sexist remarks instead of engaging on the merits of the issue at hand.

This is what women must deal with because we are not expected to be contrary. And guess what happens when I point out that calling me angry is sexist? It doesn’t go over well, and things escalate from there, which just further proves my point. (Why women should be angry is a post for another time.)

If you must resort to name-calling or sexist adjectives, perhaps that’s a sign that you don’t have valid arguments to counter my views. You know who else does this? Junk food industry lobbyists. In years past, for example, I was attacked for being vegan, as if that alone was a reason to dismiss my work. Now I am being attacked by those who share similar goals but disagree on how to get there.

Just because I won’t jump on your biotech food bandwagon does not make me angry or bitter or negative. It means I have views different than yours. One that is legitimate and based on my years of research, observations, and experiences. And I deserve respect even if you disagree. Also, don’t expect me to justify my views with volumes of research. I don’t provide free consulting. Do you own homework or hire me.

And do some research on how calling women angry, bitter, or other emotional descriptors to dismiss them has a long history. Do you really want to be in the camp that calls women “hysterical”?

I will not tolerate abusive comments to my posts and have become much quicker to mute, block, and delete on social media. You can make your case respectfully and leave it at that. Or move along and don’t say anything. Leave us both in peace.