And in the spirit of this, wouldn't it be best to confer naked? I mean,
textile and apparel workers are among the most exploited in the world;
synthetic fibers use earth-destroying petrochemicals, and natural fibers
rely heavily on pesticides; and the transport of all clothing, raw and/or
finished, requires petroleum-based fuels and grass-crushing vehicles. And
actually, we should think twice about using this medium, which has long
depended on subsidies from the U.S. Department of "Defense" - there would
neither be computers nor an Internet without the Pentagon.
See, individual action *can* change the social world.
Doug
Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)
On Thu, 13 Oct 1994, Natalie Alane wrote:
> Yes. Definitely ban meat from feminist conferences. Also, excellent idea
> about the alcohol as well. Why put others under undue pressure to join in.
> Plus, it should go without saying that cigarettes and other smokable materials
> should not be allowed. Not to mention all that sugar-loaded, fat-filled
> reception fare such as cookies, cake and punch. After all, shouldn't we care
> more about our bodies and not supporting industries who over-process and over-
> additive our food? That brings me to my next idea, why don't all conference
> attenders meet at 5:00 am to take a few laps around the hotel block. That
> would serve as a bonding agent as well as benefit our physical beings. The
> only problem is that when you're running, you can't help but inhale carbon
> monoxide at an accelerated pace from the passing automobiles. Well, at least
>
> it won't be *our* automobiles! You weren't planning to /drive/ to the confer-
> ence, were you??!? Do you realize how much Earth-destruction took place to
> make that car? And how detrimental it is to keep it running? And if we drove,
> it would certainly discourage well-meaning resisters from continuing to ride
> their bikes. They would certainly run out and buy a car since we are doing it.
> And what about this hotel, anyway? I wonder what the landscape was like before
> a bunch of capitalistic, profit-mongering ogres tore it down. I make a motion
> that all future conferences be held in woods and everyone camps out. (This is
> actually done and what fun it is!) By using the conference facilities we are
> only supporting the very thing we are "conferring" about. . . . . . . . . . .
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 14 12:24:46 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 14 12:24:46 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 MAA11852 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 14 Oct 1994 12:24:41 -0600
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 14:27:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Meat-free conferences
Brian writes:
>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?
The argument from sensitivity is flawed and inadequate. It is flawed in that
sensitivity cuts both ways. Those who don't drink or eat meat have a duty to
be sensitive to those who do, just as much as the converse. Otherwise we end
up with some kind of dictatorship of the easily offended. This has been argued
ad nauseum regarding smoking. The non-smoker and the smoker each has her
rights. One should not blow smoke in the other's face. But the other shouldn't
be able to demand that he not even see the smoke, because it makes him think of
people suffering from emphysema.
It is inadequate because sometimes sensitivity must give way to other values
when those values are more important. In the free speech context, for example,
we do not, and should not, allow the easily bruised sensitivities of some
stifle the debate of others. In the Senate hearing to confirm Ruth
Bader-Ginsburg, I remember Sen. Hatch asking the judge whether abortion could
be compared to slavery. Sen. Mosely-Braun asked him to withdraw the question
because it offended her. At first he didn't want to. He thought it was a
legitimate question. She insisted, and so he withdrew it. I was astounded.
How, I thought, could one person's sensitivity outweigh the entire nation's
need to hear how a potential Supreme Court justice viewed a crucial issue?
My point is that circumstances often require us to put our sensitivities aside
for the sake of the common good, as well as in recognition that others have
sensitivities that conflict with our own. Perhaps one of these is being
sensitive to being told what to do. Ecofeminism must resist the temptation to
become totalitarian in its attempt to be sensitive.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 14 14:54:19 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 14 14:54:18 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 OAA15993 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 14 Oct 1994 14:54:16 -0600
Received: from checkov.hm.udayton.edu by enterprise.udayton.edu;
(5.65/1.1.8.2/09Oct94-0637PM)
id AA17872; Fri, 14 Oct 1994 16:56:28 -0400
Received: from HM/MAILQUEUE by checkov.hm.udayton.edu (Mercury 1.11);
Fri, 14 Oct 94 16:49:42 GMT-5
Received: from MAILQUEUE by HM (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 14 Oct 94 16:49:17 GMT-5
From: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Dayton
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 16:49:13 EST
Subject: Re: Non-______ Conferences
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, when you put it THAT way, I guess we better stop concerning
ourselves with sexism, racism and heterosexism as well, since such
concerns lead to EXACTLY the same sort of slippery slopes that have
been detailed below to follow from concern for animal abuse or for
those struggling with alcoholism.
Why bring up all the difficulties of being concerned for others when
we can just structure our conferences the way they always used to be:
by, for and of self-absorbed straight white middle-class males.
Brian
> And in the spirit of this, wouldn't it be best to confer naked? I mean,
> textile and apparel workers are among the most exploited in the world;
> synthetic fibers use earth-destroying petrochemicals, and natural fibers
> rely heavily on pesticides; and the transport of all clothing, raw and/or
> finished, requires petroleum-based fuels and grass-crushing vehicles. And
> actually, we should think twice about using this medium, which has long
> depended on subsidies from the U.S. Department of "Defense" - there would
> neither be computers nor an Internet without the Pentagon.
>
> See, individual action *can* change the social world.
>
> Doug
>
> Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Left Business Observer
> 212-874-4020 (voice)
> 212-874-3137 (fax)
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Oct 1994, Natalie Alane wrote:
>
> > Yes. Definitely ban meat from feminist conferences. Also, excellent idea
> > about the alcohol as well. Why put others under undue pressure to join in.
> > Plus, it should go without saying that cigarettes and other smokable materials
> > should not be allowed. Not to mention all that sugar-loaded, fat-filled
> > reception fare such as cookies, cake and punch. After all, shouldn't we care
> > more about our bodies and not supporting industries who over-process and over-
> > additive our food? That brings me to my next idea, why don't all conference
> > attenders meet at 5:00 am to take a few laps around the hotel block. That
> > would serve as a bonding agent as well as benefit our physical beings. The
> > only problem is that when you're running, you can't help but inhale carbon
> > monoxide at an accelerated pace from the passing automobiles. Well, at least
> >
> > it won't be *our* automobiles! You weren't planning to /drive/ to the confer-
> > ence, were you??!? Do you realize how much Earth-destruction took place to
> > make that car? And how detrimental it is to keep it running? And if we drove,
> > it would certainly discourage well-meaning resisters from continuing to ride
> > their bikes. They would certainly run out and buy a car since we are doing it.
> > And what about this hotel, anyway? I wonder what the landscape was like before
> > a bunch of capitalistic, profit-mongering ogres tore it down. I make a motion
> > that all future conferences be held in woods and everyone camps out. (This is
> > actually done and what fun it is!) By using the conference facilities we are
> > only supporting the very thing we are "conferring" about. . . . . . . . . . .
> >
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 14 15:12:10 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 14 15:12:10 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 PAA16403 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 14 Oct 1994 15:12:07 -0600
Received: from checkov.hm.udayton.edu by enterprise.udayton.edu;
(5.65/1.1.8.2/09Oct94-0637PM)
id AA17897; Fri, 14 Oct 1994 17:14:22 -0400
Received: from HM/MAILQUEUE by checkov.hm.udayton.edu (Mercury 1.11);
Fri, 14 Oct 94 17:07:35 GMT-5
Received: from MAILQUEUE by HM (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 14 Oct 94 17:07:27 GMT-5
From: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Dayton
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 17:07:20 EST
Subject: Re: Meat-free conferences
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The argument from sensitivity is flawed and inadequate. It is flawed in that
> sensitivity cuts both ways. Those who don't drink or eat meat have a duty to
> be sensitive to those who do, just as much as the converse. Otherwise we end
> up with some kind of dictatorship of the easily offended. This has been argued
> ad nauseum regarding smoking. The non-smoker and the smoker each has her
> rights. One should not blow smoke in the other's face. But the other shouldn't
> be able to demand that he not even see the smoke, because it makes him think of
> people suffering from emphysema.
>
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. So let me rephrase your last statement--one
may not have the right to DEMAND not to see cigarette smoke, but
suppose a friend of yours just lost a loved one to emphysema, and he
says to you that every time you light up in front of him he's unable
to focus on the work he's trying to do. How would you respond if he
ASKED (not demanded) for you not to smoke in front of him at work?
> It is inadequate because sometimes sensitivity must give way to
> other values when those values are more important.
This statement makes perfect sense in a general abstract way. But
regarding the context at issue--what values are at stake, in
opposition to sensitivity, in the decision to serve meat and alcohol
at a conference? What of importance is lost in deciding not to serve
meat or alcohol?
> How, I thought, could one person's sensitivity outweigh the entire nation's
> need to hear how a potential Supreme Court justice viewed a crucial issue?
>
It doesn't. But aren't there ways to find out her views on these
crucial issues without asking loaded and offensive questions about
them?
> Ecofeminism must resist the temptation to
> become totalitarian in its attempt to be sensitive.
>
I personally see no essential connection between being sensitive and
being totalitarian. If anything, I would think that greater
sensitivity mitigates against authoritarianism.
Brian
