> I wish as J. Roper suggested that the discussion about banning meat (and > ?a host of other things) at ecofeminist conferences was merely tongue-and > ?cheek conversations that should be ignored. Unfortunately, it is not. > ?The suggestion is not new, it is presented as serious proposals in numerous > ?ecofeminist texts. As a matter of fact, the person proposing it on the > ?network cited one text in which this discussion takes place. > ?In Gaard's Ecofeminism book, not only does this discussion take place > ?but race enters the discourse -- women of color are portrayed as the ones > ?whose meat eating has to be given consideration. They, therefore, make > ?white ecofeminists uncomfortable. Race comes into Adams' discussion in Gaard's book on page 211. There's nothing there (or anywhere in the article) about being uncomfortable with women of color. The central point of the article is that the meat production system is oppressive to animals, and we cover over that by privatizing dietary choices in many ways, one of which is by placing the eating of animals within racial/ethnic traditions. Adams argues that pluralism, which is about breaking down barriers to inclusion, is here used to enforce a previously existing boundary between humans and other animals, as if people of color can only be included so long as nonhuman animals are kept out. (well, technically they're not kept out, they're brought in dead on a plate, but you know what I mean.) Adams also states on p. 202 that "the normativeness of 'meat' eating [is] embraced by people across the divisions of race, class, and sex." So the anthropocentrism of people of color is no more or less being challenged than that of whites. Of course, the real and serious > implications arguments are not fully explored in these texts. What are the serious implications that are not being explored? Let's explore them! Brian
