Hey. This is Sara writing from Houston about something slightly off topic, but I'm requesting help on an action. Last night, as many of you probably saw, two women kissed on network television. Now, I don't want to reduce the importance of "Serving In Silence" to one kiss, but it was an important part of the movie and the makers of the movie were prepared to fight NBC to keep that scene intact. Well, at 10:01 last night my girlfriend called me from Huntsville, AL: "Did they kiss? Did they kiss?" "Of course they kissed!" As it turns out, the local NBC affiliate in H'ville censored it; they showed the two women standing side by side talking, blacked out the screen, and then came back with the closing scene at the gay pride rally. So there are two things I want. First I want to know if other towns were shown a censored movie. Second we want to let the Huntsville affiliate know that we don't need one or two power-tripping pinheads deciding what we should be able to see. Take a trip to your local gay/lesbian/feminist bookstore and pick up postcards showing EXPLICIT lesbianism--kissing, hugging, whatever--and send your message to Judy Cornelius, WAFF-TV, 1414 Memorial Parkway, N.W., Hunstville Alabama 35801. It might help if you get several cards and address them and then distribute them to your friends. The more cards they get, the louder the message. Thanks! >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Feb 7 15:00:41 MST 1995 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 14:42:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Lana Rabkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: re: your response to James Roper To: Jonathan M Poppele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I couldn't have said it better myself. Bravo. >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Feb 7 16:10:24 MST 1995 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 15:19:43 -0800 (PST) From: Faith Freewoman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Politics of Meat-Eating This is one of two longish posts I'm sending to the ecofem lists. Understanding that some people pay for the volume, I'm only doing this because I feel that in both cases ecofemmers can use the material a) to carry on the good fight throughout cyberspace; and b) to print and pass around as needed. BTW, I am an omnivore by necessity as much as choice (allergies to most vegetable protein sources); however, I recognize the need to eat lower on the food chain as much as possible. Add the material on this subject (I like John Robbins' two books) to some of the material in the following post, and you have some mighty convincing handouts. Faith Freewoman ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 06 Feb 95 19:05:23 -2400 From: Theodore E. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: http://www.etext.org/Zines/Intrrr.Nrrrd/DDfemeat.html > "Women and Meat, Women as Meat" > > by Danielle DeVoss > > "We learn of the parallel legal categories of femme covert and beste > covert - married woman, domesticated animal - and ponder the > relationship between these legal categories and husbands and > husbandmen, battered women and hattery chicks" (Adams. 164). > > In the recent past, women were possessions, as were land and farm > animals. The rights of women guaranteed no more power or privilege > than a cow with a bell around its neck. Women have become empowered. > but some of the basic ideologies comparing women to domesticated > animals and to the meat provided by such, still exist in our society. > > Directly linked to this are the sexual politics that have been argued > for centuries in almost every circle of Western society. The position > of womanhood has alternately been degraded, uplifted, abused, and > revered. every aspect of social culture, social class and social > politics in relation to gender issues has probably been explored by > this point in time. However, our society has not yet answered to, or > widely explored the links between meat and the human feminine gender, > or the sexual politics of meat. Several reasons or examples, exist to > illustrate the point that women in our society have generally been > degraded to a role comparable to the common edible animal. One of > these reasons is explicit and obvious; it is our language. Over one > hundred verbal expressions exist that equate women negatively with the > animal species. Women are "bitches," "chicks," and their bodily parts > follow in term. Women are "pieces" of "ass", women have "tits." > > It can be argued that the same has occurred in the linguistics of the > male gender. That is, men are equally and as often compared to animal > creatures as women are. But there are less than thirty words that are > regularly used in application to the masculine, and those that do > exist seem to take on a rugged, admirable trait. "Cock" and "stud" are > two examples of words referring to both animals and men that do not > seem to denote negatively, rather, they infer strength, manhood, and > masculinity. "Meat eating measures individual and social virility" > (Adams, 26). > > Another reason, or illustrative point, that is obvious in the relation > of woman to meat is that of sexual violence. As a meateating society, > we have adapted simple ways of justifying our carnivorous habits. > Billboards, buttons, and posters representing brands and makes of food > present various images of animals. Most of these images present a > smiling, happy animal. Charlie the Tuna is an excellent example of an > advertiser's ploy to convince an unknowing consumer that. the fish > himself is perfectly content to be devoured. Women are not only > compared to meat, but are expected to act as meat; passive, > restrained, and content to be devoured. > > Likewise, a nasty habit exists in which we attempt to justify the rape > of women. Both animals and women are seen as happy prey. A woman wears > 2 skirt far too short - she wants to be raped. A dancing cartoon cow > on a McDonalds commercial wants to be eaten - he wants to be consumed. > A woman wears high heels and raunchy makeup -- she wants to be raped. > Charlie the Tuna merrily waves his magic wand around a can of fresh > packed tuna - he wants to be consumed. Meat is meat, to be consumed, > meat wants to be consumed. Woman is meat, to be consumed J she wants > to be consumed. > > The implication or insinuation that both women and animals participate > willingly in this process renders them as an absent referent. Both > women and meat become a vehicle. It has been proposed that through a > cyclical system of objectification, fragmentation, and consumption, > butchering is directly linked to sexual violence in our Western > culture. Women are meat. > > Another example of the parallels between the eating of meat and the > degradation of women exists in our codification of meat-eating and our > codification of the feminine-role. Vegetarianism, or the absence of > meat from a diet, is still seen as a distinctly feminine trait. Some > men have gone so far as to argue that meat-eating is a necessary > masculine function. Conversely, some also argue that there are set > modes, means, and rules for the behavior and lives of women, as there > are set modes, means, and meals for the consumption of meat. Both > meat-eating and the role of women seem to be indoctrinated into > Western culture. They are readily accepted due to convenience and > tradition. Convenience to whom? Certainly not the woman, and certainly > not to animalian species, both readily exploited and consumed. > > Another illustrative point exists in dissection. That is, the feminine > text, or the feminine life, livelihood, and representations of such > has been dissected as have been the corpses and carcasses of animals. > Abused, dismembered, destroyed, and thrown away. Personal letters, > such as those of Virginia Woolf, have been scorned and mocked by the > patriarchal literary system, dissected as would a piece of meat, > consumed, and shat out. The parallel then is that the feminine text is > of no greater value, in our meat-eating, animal-dissecting society, > than that of an animal corpse. > > "We learn that the literary history dismembers by excluding women's > writings from the established canon...What feminists see in the fate > of women's texts, vegetarians see in the fate of animals" (Adams, 9). > > In turn, it can be argued that vegetarianism, like feminism and its > doctrines, has been muted by the purveying Western world order. That > is, both theories are excluded from the dominating order, that order > being both meat-eating and patriarchal. > > In conclusion, it is fairly obvious that the theories of > vegetarianism, feminism, and the placement of women on the same level > of meat in our society are interwoven. Our language proves to > illustrate this point, in that plentiful examples exist of the > degradation of women and animals alike, and the comparison of women to > the dead flesh of animals. Furthering this, is the dominating > society's manipulation of the feminine gender and the animal species. > They are turned into happy willing prey through advertisement and > assumption. The codification of feminine traits and the presumed > masculinity attached to meat-eating stabilizes the society's pressure > on womankind and animalkind. And, finally, the dismemberment of the > feminine text, or the destruction of the literary vocal cords of the > female population treats women's work as an animal's body. > > The sexual politics of meat infiltrate many aspects of our culture, > and are codified into our thinking. Only through awareness of and with > the active discouragement of such can we change this indoctrinated, > almost subconscious system, and uplift women from a position of > meathood to a position of personhood. > > "Until we can recognize the kinship of all living creatures we shall > remain in outer darkness." -Isabel Colgate > > Quotes taken from: Adams, Carol J., The Sexual Politics of Meat, The > Continuum Publishing Company, New York: 1990. > > [Image]
