Brian writes:
>Well, this is not about demands or dictatorships. It's about us
>freely deciding as a community to respect people at conferences as we
>plan those conferences.
The conference planners, who decide that everyone must abstain from
meat/alcohol or whatever that many people commonly enjoy are the "feminist
dictators" as you put it. They have certain power, and they use it to ensure
obedience to their views. Give people a choice as to how sensitive they want
to be. I don't drink alcohol, but I don't want to impose my view on those who
enjoy it without bothering anyone. (That I disapprove or am offended does not,
in my view, count as bothering anyone.) I certainly could go a meal without
eating meat, but I would be tremendously offended that someone else (conference
organizers) made this choice for me for political reasons that I don't share.
I sympathize with your relative who didn't get his turkey. It's not the turkey
itself that probably bothered him, but rather the fact that others took away
his choice. It's my experience that people who see nothing wrong with taking
away another's choice are the loudest complainers when the shoe is on the other
foot.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 17 08:46:45 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 17 08:46:45 1994
Received: from DAFFY.MILLERSV.EDU (DAFFY.MILLERSV.EDU [192.206.29.10]) by
csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id IAA22972 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 17 Oct 1994 08:46:44 -0600
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 10:50:07 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: morals and religion
Some have written to criticise religion as the source of historical suffering
and bloodshed. This is an innaccurate picture of the role of religion in
history.
It is true that much blood has been spilled "in the name of" religion. But
almost all of it was politically and economically motivated. Religion is the
palatable excuse. It is rare that armies have gone to war, or that pogroms
were carried out because of genuine religious fervor. It is mostly when
political and economic issues are at stake that people are moved to hate those
of another group. Who really wants to fight over religious doctrine? Most
don't even know what the enemy believes.
The effect of religion, when practiced according to its actual tenets as
received from the prophet directly, have almost always been positive. Take, as
an example, this quote from the Bahai Faith on kindness to animals:
>Briefly, it is not only their fellow human beings that the beloved of God must
>treat with mercy and compassion, rather must they show forth the utmost
>loving-kindness to every living creature. For in all physical respects, and
>where the animal spirit is concerned, the selfsame feelings are shared by
>animal and man. Man hath not grasped this truth, however, and he believeth
>that physical sensations are confined to human beings, wherefore is he unjust
>to the animals, and cruel.
>
>And yet in truth, what difference is there when it cometh to physical
>sensations? The feelings are one and the same, whether ye inflict pain on man
>or on beast. There is no difference here whatever. And indeed ye do worse to
>harm an animal, for man hath a language, he can lodge a complaint, he can cry
>out and moan; if injured he can have recourse to the authorities and these will
>protect him from his aggressor. But the hapless beast is mute, able neither to
>express its hurt nor take its case to the authorities. If a man inflict a
>thousand ills upon a beast, it can neither ward him off with speech nor hale
>him into court. Therefore is it essential that ye show forth the utmost
>consideration to the animal, and that ye be even kinder to him than to your
>fellow man.
So, when thinking about the role of religion in protecting the environment and
the rights of people, we do better to focus on what the prophets have said, and
not on what man has done.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 17 15:51:56 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 17 15:51:56 1994
Received: from VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU (vm.cc.purdue.edu [128.210.254.40]) by
csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id PAA06982 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 17 Oct 1994 15:51:51 -0600
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU by VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 6862; Mon, 17 Oct 94 16:52:18 EST
Received: from PURCCVM (NJE origin BFSAMUEL@PURCCVM) by VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU (LMail
V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1993; Mon, 17 Oct 1994 16:51:55 -0500
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 94 16:41:13 EST
From: B Frederique S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A SIMPLE BUT IMPORTANT REQUEST??
To: Eco-feminists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
HELLO FOLKS:
The banter on this network has not helped me to preventmy mailbox from clogging
up...and that is with spending at least 3 hours each day on my e-mail system.
I AM TAKING MY OWN RESPONSIBILITY to inform you that I cannot spend more time
reading my mail much as I enjoy it. Spending three days in bed ill has
certainly convinced me that I have to give up this luxury.
REQUEST NUMBER ONE: I would like to UN-SUBSCRIBE from the list, but would like
to have news and postings from this list. Sometimes, odd postings like that
from Lorriane Elliot from Australia is most useful in helping us move beyond
social and cultural constraints as she explores the issues of gender and
feminism.
REQUEST NUMBER TWO: Is there a kind person on this network who is faster than
I am reading on this network, and is still committed to the network, and is
willing to FORWARD interesting announcements and "new revelations in old
arguments" to me?
Perhaps someone can suggest a non-angry resolution to my predicament. Here, I
apologize for taking network space (and perhaps clogging someone else's mail-
box), but by taking this responsibility, I hope I contribute to a peaceful
solution.
THANKS IN ANTICIPATION, ciao
B Frederique S
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 17 18:00:12 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 17 18:00:11 1994
Received: from enterprise.udayton.edu (enterprise.udayton.edu [131.238.75.10]) by
csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id SAA11516 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 17 Oct 1994 18:00:10 -0600
Received: from checkov.hm.udayton.edu by enterprise.udayton.edu;
(5.65/1.1.8.2/09Oct94-0637PM)
id AA21693; Mon, 17 Oct 1994 20:02:33 -0400
Received: from HM/MAILQUEUE by checkov.hm.udayton.edu (Mercury 1.11);
Mon, 17 Oct 94 19:55:10 GMT-5
Received: from MAILQUEUE by HM (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 17 Oct 94 19:54:51 GMT-5
From: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Dayton
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 19:54:50 EST
Subject: RE: Meat eating at conferences
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >Well, this is not about demands or dictatorships. It's about us
> >freely deciding as a community to respect people at conferences as we
> >plan those conferences.
>
> The conference planners, who decide that everyone must abstain from
> meat/alcohol or whatever that many people commonly enjoy are the "feminist
> dictators" as you put it. They have certain power, and they use it to ensure
> obedience to their views.
This is not at all about ensuring obedience. The decision is whether
to have meat entrees on the conference menu, and whether to serve
alcohol at the meals and/or socials--no one has suggested that guards
be posted to prevent people from going out to the nearest McDonalds
or the nearest bar.
Maybe it would help to phrase it this way--the decision the organizer
faces is not "what will attendees eat," (this question assumes
asserting control over others) but "what will I order for the menu?"
(this question implies responsibility for her decisions as
organizer).
> I certainly could go a meal without
> eating meat, but I would be tremendously offended that someone else (conference
> organizers) made this choice for me for political reasons that I don't share.
>
This presumes that a conference organizer who places meat on the menu
is NOT making a political decision. But of course she is, she's
supporting the patriarchal exploitation of animals. That's a
political act, whether it is recognized as such or not.
> I sympathize with your relative who didn't get his turkey. It's not the turkey
> itself that probably bothered him, but rather the fact that others took away
> his choice.
I have a different notion of why people get so upset about these
kinds of situations. It's not that he didn't get "his" turkey (he
could eat a dead turkey elsewhere), or that his choice was taken away
(he didn't have to attend), it's that by serving vegetarian or being
vegetarian, we're by virtue of that choice bringing back to
public consciousness the fact that eating flesh is a political/moral
choice to harm and exploit animals. This is a fact that people
would generally rather keep buried below consciousness. If one
person (or one family, or one conference) goes veggie, that
necessarily raises the question of why others don't, a question that
can be very difficult to answer, thus leading to hesitation, guilt,
spoiled appetites, or maybe even to a recognized need for radical
personal change.
Brian
