I am curious as to how everyone feels about making feminist conferences
completely vegetarian. Carol Adams raises this question in "The Feminist
Traffic in Animals" (_Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature_ ed. Greta
Gaard. Great book, by the way). Adams says "Many believe that feminism's
commitment to pluralism should prevail over arguements for
vegetarianism....Pluralism is used to de-politicize the claims of
feminist vegetarianism." Later, she makes the point that "Imposing one's
dietary decision on all races or ethnic groups is viewed as racist....I
do not believe that pluralism requires siding with human-skin privilege
in order ot avoid white-skin privilege. We do not embrace nondominant
cultural traditions that, for instance, oppress women."
What does everyone else think?
Lori T.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 13 07:46:08 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 13 07:46:07 1994
Received: from UKCC.uky.edu (ukcc.uky.edu [128.163.1.5]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id HAA00326 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 13 Oct
1994 07:46:06 -0600
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from UKCC.UKY.EDU by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 2832; Thu, 13 Oct 94 09:47:59 EDT
Received: from ukcc.uky.edu (NJE origin NALAN01@UKCC) by UKCC.UKY.EDU (LMail
V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4764; Thu, 13 Oct 1994 09:47:59 -0400
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 09:45:43 EDT
From: Natalie Alane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: environmental racism and the Third World
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 12 Oct 1994 19:33:03 -0600
On Wed, 12 Oct 1994 19:33:03 -0600 Todd said:
>toxic waste dumping in the Third World
sucks.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 13 11:10:22 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 13 11:10:22 1994
Received: from SCSUD.CTSTATEU.EDU (scsud.ctstateu.edu [149.152.40.2]) by
csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id LAA07498 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 13 Oct 1994 11:10:16 -0600
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 12:56:41 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: gad! a fly!
Roxanne wrote: Part of Gadfly's proposal for moral thinking about non-human
animals "sounds an awful lot like the Golden Rule..." and then pointed out the
fact that many religions propose something like it. I'd only say that in my
intro ethics course I usually point out that it is possible to give an egoist,
cultural relativist, utilitarian [and other teleological], deontological, and
other readings of the Golden Rule [including that those with the gold tend to
rule!]. My suggestion was to counter the egoism that lies behind most
anti-ecological views by starting the discussion with the ego in question. If
one can then show one cannot block the moral consideration of non-humans based
on the principles the dissenter wants to apply to her or himself, one can get
much farther with a pro-eco view...
Natalie thinks I've contradicted myself. Obviously, I don't think so. She
says my prodding to others to consider language and ethics, etc., "means
nothing when you state that *you* think anyone who doesn't agree with "us" have
values you consider wrong!!" All I have to hold is that it is possible to get
these topics wrong [it could be them--those I called enemies of nature--or it
could be me]. The question [and remember I raise it in a friendly inquiry into
what ecofeminism is] is what should the analysis look like? I think eco-views
often assume an undigested moral perspective which somehow gets translated into
a sort of science-stance [hence the appeal to the existence of food chains,
etc.]. That's why I sign myself.....Prof. Gadfly [cf. Plato, APOLOGY]
