> I am curious as to how everyone feels about making feminist conferences
> completely vegetarian.
The best argument for this, IMO, is the one Adams gives, namely that
animals are oppressed in the production of meat, and that this should
be recognized. But let me try another argument. First, an analogy:
Sonia Johnson argues somewhere that conferences should be alcohol
free, out of respect for lesbians recovering from alcoholism. This
makes sense to me--why put unneeded pressure or discomfort on someone
else just because one group enjoys drinking alcohol? We don't HAVE
to drink to have a good time, to communicate, etc. Similarly, no one
HAS to eat meat to relax, communicate, etc. (do they?). Yet the
presence of meat at a meal is distracting, troubling, even
nauseating to increasing numbers of us. Does respect for this fact
entail providing vegetarian meals for the whole conference?
I'll give one personal example. When I was interviewing for a job a
few years ago, a group of professors took me out to dinner. One of
the professors asked if HIS eating meat at the meal would bother me.
He expressed very clearly to me that if it bothered me at all, he
would order vegetarian. I was floored by this, since at no time
before in my life had someone been that considerate of how I might
feel by their eating meat in front of me. This incident clarified to
me how much dissociation and distancing I often have to do to get
through a meal with someone who's eating flesh. This kind of
dissocation between the flesh on the plate and the realities of
animal farming becomes habitual and unconscious for meat-eaters, but
requires a conscious and difficult act of will for vegetarians, or at
least for me.
Brian
