Solutions for Animal Ethics Vegetarians

Some vegetarians I've noticed are vegetarians or vegans out of a desire to limit human cruelty on animals.  A noble goal, but there might be some alternates for someone who respects animal rights but still want to consume meat.

1. Insects.  Many peoples across the globe consume insects as part of a daily food source.  While insects are still considered animals, many people do not give the same care to them as they do to other animals. 
2. Lab-grown meat.  While currently not sold in any supermarkets, scientists could grow meat in a laboratory using cow stem-cells someday.  

Treating women like a piece of celery

This post is really just to expand on this week's Q&A.  In it, I said that vegetarianism would not topple patriarchy, if it really exists (it would have helped if it was defined by the author, as many femenists have varying views on the term).  One of the problems that I had with Kheel's argument was how she linked together men's sexual and actual appetites.  I can understand the metaphor linking the two together, but the connection stops there.  Kheel seems to suggest that meat is fueling the objectivity of women in society.  I feel that if that was truly the case, then a lot of guys would have strange meat fetishes.  So even if everyone went vegan, nothing about how some men treat women would change.  Instead of being treated like a piece of meat, they would be treated like a piece of celery.

On 'Dominating' Animals

Which animals are okay to kill and which are not?  How far can humans subjugate animals?  Are we allowed to keep pets even if the tradition dates back to the savage times when we ate meat and subjugated women?  If you think about, if eating meat is dominating animals which only feeds the male oppression of females, then the explicit ownership of animals as objects for our entertainment (cats and their endless supply of videos) should only feed male obsession over women and what they could provide a man in terms of pleasure.  It can't be defended by tradition since vegans argue against meat consumption as a part of out traditional culture.

Also of note is killing animals that people can't identify with.  To me, Marti Kheel said vegeantrians have no qualms about eating plants in part because they cannot place themselves in the plant's metaphorical shoes.  It's much easier to imagine the pain a cow might go through as it screams and makes noise and therefore is easier one's self in the cow's shoes (or hooves?).  But people don't have problems with killing mosquitoes or spiders and I haven't heard anyone call for rights and protection for insects.  The questions comes, why is it not okay to kill a cow for food and clothing (leather) and okay to kill a spider, which feeds on crop destroying insects and disease carrying mosquitoes, if it is bugging you?  It's like having double standards for 'cute' animals and 'ugly' animals, both of which have a life and a brain and can no doubt feel pain.

Can animals live a better life if they are destined for the slaughter?

Theoretically, any animal that is destined for the slaughter could live a better life then it would if it was living in the world.  Cattle, just to focus on one animal, would live free-range and munch on all the grass they want to. The gazing cattle would never have to worry about finding food again.  They would even be given healthcare, as farmers would take care of it since people wouldn't want to buy sick cattle (irrational fears of mad cow disease among the consumers).  Finally, the cow's death would be humane and painless.
I will state that this is far from the current reality.  However, that could change if we, the consumers, demanded our beef to be free-range.  Businesses would adapt to the change in demand.  Plus, I also found free-range beef to taste better then factory farm beef.