> Many said their view of food was a
> "personal" choice or ethics, that there were no claims to be made on us in
> general regarding such things, etc.
Yes, I remember this point being made. I was particularly disturbed
that the idea of meat-eating or no meat-eating was described as a
personal choice by VEGETARIANS on the list. I mean, I can understand
why meat-eaters would want to personalize this choice pretty easily.
The women's liberation movement politicized many activities that were
previously held to be purely personal and therefore outside the scope
of political analysis or criticism. But apparently there is still,
for certain patriarchal activities (like the exploitation of animals)
an inclination by many feminists to preserve the power and protection
from scrutiny that comes from labelling oppressive behavior "personal
choice." In my opinion, buying meat is no more a personal choice
than beating one's wife, raping one's children, or hiring a
prostitute.
Carol Adams goes into this in detail in her article in Greta Gaard's
anthology _Ecofeminism_. She states, for example, that "The
invocation of autonomy ... presumes that no one else's liberty is at
issue in food choices. This is simply not so. The invisibility of
animals' oppression permits the debate to be about individual human's
liberties, rather than making animals' oppression visible" (p. 210).
Brian
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 1 13:55:06 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 1 13:55:06 1994
Received: from udavxb (udavxb.oca.udayton.edu [131.238.1.11]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id NAA26645 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 1 Oct
1994 13:55:05 -0600
Received: from checkov.hm.udayton.edu by udavxb.oca.udayton.edu (PMDF V4.2-10
#2481) id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat,
1 Oct 1994 15:53:35 EDT
Received: from HM/MAILQUEUE by checkov.hm.udayton.edu (Mercury 1.11); Sat,
1 Oct 94 15:49:54 GMT-5
Received: from MAILQUEUE by HM (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 1 Oct 94 15:49:31 GMT-5
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 1994 15:49:29 -0500 (EST)
From: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "eco" in ecofem
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Dayton
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
> I agree. I'd like to learn more about the "eco" part of
> ecofeminism and less body mutilation, holocaust, meat-eating,
> carrots, and list regulation.
>
> just another "bloke"
>
A central component of ecofeminism, as I understand it, is a very
deep holism, the recognition that many of the issues pulled apart
from each other in malestream culture are in fact intrinsically
linked. In particular, how we treat and think of our bodies
and what we do to our bodies (mutilate or not?) are intricately
linked to how we treat animals and nature because of the
identification of highly exploited animals/nature with the physical,
and the consequent derogation of the physical side of our own nature.
So attempts to force our bodies into certain unnatural shapes, for
example, breast implants, enlargements and stretchings of various
sorts, etc., are very much related to our attempts to force nature
into unnatural shapes, a la river damming, monocultural agriculture,
landscape architecture, etc.
Brian
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 1 14:12:11 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 1 14:12:10 1994
Received: from alleg.EDU (pellns.ALLEG.EDU [141.195.5.200]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id OAA26900 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 1 Oct
1994 14:12:08 -0600
Received: from quig20 by alleg.EDU (NX5.67e/NX3.0M)
id AA23065; Sat, 1 Oct 94 16:14:12 -0400
From: Marie Radina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: by quig20.alleg.edu (NX5.67d/NX3.0X)
id AA09808; Sat, 1 Oct 94 16:14:11 -0400
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 94 16:14:11 -0400
Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.100)
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.100)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Discussion Format
I agree with Natalie. Even though I am not interested in some of the topics
discussed, I
believe that the format that we've been using is a wonderfully way to learn and have
our
voices heard by people that would not normally hear them. I vote we keep up the
conversation because the stimulate new ideas. If you want to speak with someone
specifically regarding something that the rest of us aren't included in, please write
them
directly and spare us of what someone so lovingly called "chat."
Thanks,
Elise
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 1 14:39:34 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 1 14:39:33 1994
Received: from nyssa.swt.edu (nyssa.swt.edu [147.26.10.11]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id OAA27352 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 1 Oct
1994 14:39:32 -0600
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from academia.swt.edu by academia.swt.edu (PMDF V4.3-7 #6249)
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 1 Oct 1994 15:41:58 CDT
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 1994 15:41:58 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Choices
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Southwest Texas State University
X-VMS-To: IN%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
The word choice has been coming up repeatedly in this discussion, and since
we're defining terms such as "ecofeminism" and "spirituality," I think that it
is important to define "choice" and what its role is in the movement.
I feel that choice is fundamental to freedom. As humans, as thinkers and
decision makers, almost everything we do is based upon our personal choices. I
am choosing right now to send this message. Everyday, I choose to ride my bike
or take the bus to school rather than drive my car. I chose to drink red wine
last night. I chose to not get any studying done this morning. I chose what I
ate for lunch today.
These things are all choices - nobody forced me to do any of it. Of course not
all things I choose to do are ethically "right" or even justifiable.
Therefore, I must pay the consequences for my actions. If I eat a hamburger
for dinner, this is my choice - my choice to kill this animal, and my choice to
eat it, and the consequences are the death of an animal, the further
destruction to the environment, the exploitation of workers, the harm to my
body. If a person kills someone, the consequences may be life imprisonment or
even death.
When I say I CHOSE to be a vegetarian for personal reasons, I mean it. I
didn't have people force me to eat tofu and carrots, I didn't receive threats
from vegetarians, I wasn't told I was condemned for my eating habits. Through
education and discovery of what I believe is ethically right and wrong I became
a vegetarian. Meat is still on the shelves in the store, leather is sold in
shoestores - killing animals surrounds me every day of my life. but, I choose
to not participate in this in my own life.
I'm sure that many of you have read George Orwell's -1984.- This is what
happens when choice is restricted and human decision making is limited (or
attempted to anyway) by governmental force. While I would like for all humans
to be vegetarians, or feminists, or environmental warriors - is it my right to
force them into this? Or is that a contradiction of what I stand for?
This is my body, and I feel I have a right to control what I put in it, on it,
take away from it, etc. I know and agree that someone must speak for the
animals and the Earth in general. I do speak for Her daily. But I don't speak
for other people - they can speak for themselves.
Tj.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 1 14:46:21 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 1 14:46:21 1994
Received: from nyssa.swt.edu (nyssa.swt.edu [147.26.10.11]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id OAA27539 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 1 Oct
1994 14:46:20 -0600
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from academia.swt.edu by academia.swt.edu (PMDF V4.3-7 #6249)
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 1 Oct 1994 15:48:46 CDT
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 1994 15:48:46 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Choice (again)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Southwest Texas State University
X-VMS-To: IN%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Before I get bashed.
I believe that legislation is the most effective way to change behavior and
eventually attitudes. Macro-level "restrictions" (such as halting the
unethical treatment of animals in the meat industry) are a lot more effective
than micro-level ones (such as me trying to stop one person from buying
hamburger meat) and in the long run, probably change more people's attitudes.
And my saying this is not me buying into the patriarchal system, it's me trying
to change it.
That's all.
Bash away :)
Tj.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 1 14:54:01 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 1 14:54:01 1994
Received: from udavxb (udavxb.oca.udayton.edu [131.238.1.11]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id OAA27645 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 1 Oct
1994 14:53:58 -0600
Received: from checkov.hm.udayton.edu by udavxb.oca.udayton.edu (PMDF V4.2-10
#2481) id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat,
1 Oct 1994 16:52:14 EDT
Received: from HM/MAILQUEUE by checkov.hm.udayton.edu (Mercury 1.11); Sat,
1 Oct 94 16:48:32 GMT-5
Received: from MAILQUEUE by HM (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 1 Oct 94 16:48:00 GMT-5
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 1994 16:47:50 -0500 (EST)
From: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: have we met the enemy?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Dayton
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
> Your comments interest me, Brian. I understand what you are saying on some
> levels. By society's traditional standards of what "manliness" is, you're
> right. A "true" man is one who is violent, aggressive, and unfeeling. But do
> you really think that it is not possible to change the definition of
> "manliness?" I know that I personally (as well as many others on this list)
> think that men who do not eat meat, men who do not marry (although marriage
> does not have to be man "owning" woman), men who do not fight
> in wars, etc. ARE true men. Must we totally erase "man" and "woman" in order
> to achieve equality?
>
Maybe this is about degrees of liberation. Perhaps there could be
(or has been) a society in which the males were distinguished from the
females, but there was still equality. But why settle with this?
Since any distinction between male and female is likely to focus on
sex and reproduction, I'd think that by preserving the male/female
distinction we're artificially limiting our future possibilities for
very diverse and interesting configurations of sexuality and
reproduction. To be concrete, by distinguishing male/female, we
might be just the slightest bit more inclined to think of human
reproduction as a biological, rather than a cultural activity, and on
that basis to overlook the reproductive work that all human beings can
do. Or we might be more inclined to artificially assign
some sexual possibilities to one group and not to another, such as,
for example, multiple orgasm.
Brian
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 2 15:34:31 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 2 15:34:28 1994
Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id PAA23263; Sun, 2 Oct 1994 15:34:26 -0600
Received: by panix.com id AA15545
(5.67b/IDA-1.5); Sun, 2 Oct 1994 17:36:27 -0400
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 17:36:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LBO gopher open
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Apologies to those of you getting multiple copies of this.
The Left Business Observer gopher is now open. It can be reached by
pointing your gopher at csf.colorado.edu 70, and looking under the
directories, econ then orgs then LBO.
About one article per issue will be posted four to six weeks after paying
subscribers get their copies. There are nine articles there now, on
topics ranging from income and poverty to the New Party to the delusions
of laissez-faire.
As the three-card-monte dealers say on the streets of New York City,
check it out.
Here's the full info:
Type=1+
Name=LBO
Path=1/econ/orgs/LBO
Host=csf.Colorado.EDU
Port=70
Admin=Studly Gopher Admin +1 (612) 338-3970 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ModDate=Sun Oct 2 17:26:17 1994 <19941002172617>
URL: gopher://csf.Colorado.EDU:70/1/1/econ/orgs/LBO
Doug
Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)
