To respond to several messages:
Paige, the issues I was trying to get at were the ones you missed
completely. I have hardcopied every message posted on this net
and in looking over them, there have been several calls for bans
(the net was about a week old when the first call went out to ban
certain people), there have been several messages posted with
derogatory comments about heterosexuals, and of course every one
has lived through the discussions of banning meateaters from
conferences.
The questions I raise are:
Is there a distinction between forcing one's opinion on other
person and having strong moral and political opinions and convictions
that one wants to live by. How does one live by those principles
without feeling the need to force others to follow one's will.
In having a conference, the organizers have tremendous opportunit
to guide the menu - that is different from calling for outright
bans on anyone who does not fit into the political and moral mold
that has been cast. That is the distinction I wanted to discuss.
Re the issue of derogatory comments directet at heterosexuality.
There have some on this net and the question I raise is: Is that
going to be considered ok to make such comments? It was not intended
to be anti-Lesbian. It was intended to raise discussion about the
fact that no group should be target of such comments regardless of
their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. To ask that each
group be respected should not be taken as an attack against Lesbianism.
To try to discuss someone's work and preface it with derogatory
statements about sexuality and sexual orientation is problematic -
regardless of which group it is directed at.
It is interesting how questions of racial diversity evoke the ire
and images of 2 Live Crew joining ecofeminism. Brian, the images you
list, are those the only images of People of Color you have? There
is a big distinction between looking at racially segregated social
movement that make claims about unity in diversity, fighting a variety
of isms, etc., and asking about diversity in a practical way and
saying everyone is to be a part of the group. None of the people
who flamed back at me for raising these issues have confronted the
real issues I raise. These are issues relating to:
Do women (and men) of color, working class white women engaging
in environmental, ecological struggles (struggles about toxics and
environmental hazards - the byproducts of technology - killing them
and their families), do these women have a place in ecofeminism?
I raise these questions because ecofeminist writings is replete with
discussions that these are the issues that they are concerned with.
I am asking if that concern has an action component. I am asking
if there is anything beyond the phrase "unity in diversity"? is
this just a convenient catchphrase? If it is not, and ecofeminists
really mean that they want to have diversity - then what does that
diversity mean? How is it achieved in a practical sense? If the
group wants diversity, why is so racially homogeneous? If the
group wants diversity, how would it deal (in a practical way) with
women fighting everyday with the struggles that ecofeminists in
their writing claim should be fought, but have strong differences
with some ecofeminists -- they might worship in a different way,
have different diets, they have different political opinions, etc.
Given the great diversity of experiences from which these draw their
strengths to overcome these struggles, how would ecofeminists go about
dealing with this kind of diversity.
If it is not the goal of ecofeminism to have diversity beyond what
currently exists, then that should be made clear. If discussions of
People of Color in the movement evoke 2 Live Crew then these positions
ought to made clear. Diversity, as percieved by ecofeminists, should
be defined. What I am getting at is that there are a lot of catchy
buzzwords and phrases - I want to know if there is any real commitment
to give real meaning to these phrases. Many people like myself, when
they see an idea, they want to know how to put those ideas into practice
if they can. If I get flamed for asking how do these things work and
what are the implications for the movement - then so be it. By simply
Simply torching me won't let these questions go away. They are questions
every group has to confront sooner or later, and the groups that survive
and get far in attaining their goals are the ones that do not shy away
from these and many of the other questions that have been raised on
this net.
D.T.post
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 23 11:22:02 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 23 11:22:01 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 LAA26719 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 23 Oct 1994 11:22:01 -0600
Received: from checkov.hm.udayton.edu by enterprise.udayton.edu;
(5.65/1.1.8.2/09Oct94-0637PM)
id AA29747; Sun, 23 Oct 1994 13:24:33 -0400
Received: from HM/MAILQUEUE by checkov.hm.udayton.edu (Mercury 1.11);
Sun, 23 Oct 94 13:16:07 GMT-5
Received: from MAILQUEUE by HM (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 23 Oct 94 13:15:38 GMT-5
From: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Dayton
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 13:15:35 EST
Subject: Re: Diversity
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It is interesting how questions of racial diversity evoke the ire
> and images of 2 Live Crew joining ecofeminism. Brian, the images you
> list, are those the only images of People of Color you have?
I must have been unclear in my post. I'll try again. I was
responding to a tendency I perceived by posters here to use
"diversity" to block the inclusion of animals. In other words, the
idea that we can't possibly respect animals by ordering vegetarian at
conferences because (for some unexplained reason) that would prevent
the participation of some humans. I concluded by suggesting that we
think of diversity in terms of subverting institutionalized
exploitation, rather than in terms of including cross-culturally
diverse forms of exploitation. Or, instead of thinking that
diversity means including an ethnically diverse range of flesh
entrees, think of diversity as including an ethnically diverse range
of vegetarian entrees.
The 2 Live Crew example was meant to be an example of the
kind of diversity I DON'T support. Respecting a diversity of
cultures, to me, doesn't mean respecting a diversity of forms
of subordinating women. It means respecting an ethnically diverse
range of ways of liberating women. Groups like 2 Live Crew and Sir
Mix-A-Lot are promoted as black culture because doing so furthers
the subordination of women. This is a very pernicious, cynical and
manipulative form of "diversity." We might choose to celebrate black
culture AND women by instead focussing on groups like Sweet Honey in
the Rock, Arrested Development, etc.
> ought to made clear. Diversity, as percieved by ecofeminists, should
> be defined. What I am getting at is that there are a lot of catchy
> buzzwords and phrases - I want to know if there is any real commitment
> to give real meaning to these phrases. Many people like myself, when
> they see an idea, they want to know how to put those ideas into practice
> if they can. If I get flamed for asking how do these things work and
> what are the implications for the movement - then so be it. By simply
> Simply torching me won't let these questions go away.
I recognize that my post did not address your main question--I was
focussing on one component of your post and others that I was
particularly interested in and had something to say about. But I had
no intention whatsoever of flaming you or evading your main question.
I think your questions are extremely important and well put and need
to be addressed--I don't have a lot to say about them right
now, but I'm thinking about them and looking forward to the
contributions of yourself and others.
Brian
