Swarr Amanda Locke recently posted some thoughts on Ecofeminism and
animal rights. I would like to make the following comments:
>
> Ideally, I think that I think all animal testing should be
> stopped immediately, all people who have the economic means should be
> vegan, etc.
Why should we be vegan? I don't see veganism for all as being a
sustainable way of managing our planet. Animals - including those
forming part of the food chain - are an inherent part of the
ecosystem. Humans are designed to be omnivores. We can choose not
to be but if everyone did so it would make some areas uninhabitable.
People whose native habitat is the sub-polar region have to eat
animals for at least part of their food requirements. You can't grow
crops on an ice cap but might be able to catch seals.
>
> 1) Practices such as consuming flesh and testing on animals
> furthers the distinction between human and non-human animals and
> may be considered symptoms of the larger distinctions between the
> environment and our place in it. Not only do these distinctions further
> alienation and objectification, they also contribute to hierarchies of
> beings.
I don't think eating meat can be equated to testing on animals. I
believe I have a responsibility to make sure that meat I eat comes
from animals who have been well cared for during their lives and
killed in a humane way. I don't find any contradiction in doing that
and being against testing of cosmetics on animals.
> 4) There are obvious environmental reasons for supporting animal rights
> issues (such as vegetarianism) including: a) overgrazing of cattle
> leads to soil erosion
Bad agriculture of any kind leads to soil erosion. The dust bowl of
the American west in the 1930s was caused bad arable farming.
, b) global warming is being increased by methane
> produced by an over-abundance of cattle and the high expenditure of
> fossil fuels by producing all animal products,
We cause far more global warming by burning fossil fuels for
transport, heating and cooling our dwellings, and in industry.
and c) deforestation
Deforestation is as often done for arable farming as well as animal,
or simply to sell the timber. I would regard it as bad for any
reason.
> 5) Recent discussions on vegetarianism and veganism have indicated that many
> ecofem-ers disagree with the ideas of vegetarianism as an essential aspect
> of ecofeminism. Some have claimed that this choice is too
> "personal." However, the personal nature of such choices are exactly
> what makes it necessary for all ecofeminists who have the means to go
> vegan. I believe that ecofeminist upholds the feminist believe that "the
> personal is political," leading (ideally) to global awareness of our
> actions.
>
It depends what kind of vegan you are. Many rely on substitutes such
as plastics and man-made fabrics for leather and wool. Plastics and
man-made fibres use up irreplaceable resources whereas leather and
wool are renewable.
> Another question:
> Would there be an ethical base for an ecofeminist to oppose animal
> cruelty based on an inherent belief of the quality of all living beings
> and the right to life?
I would certainly oppose cruelty to animals, but I think I have to be
a vegan to have respoect for the quality of all living things.
Sincerely, June Brough.
J M Brough
Senior Secretary
School of Mathematics and Statistics
The University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham B15 2TT
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 20 07:05:54 MST 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 07:05:52 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: fwd: re: Emerging Women
Comments By: Debra Rusz@SOC@SSC
Comments:
I accidently sent this to only to Katherine English. I forgot to check the
outgoing address before I sent it. I apoligize to Katherine for sending her
two copies.
-------------------------[Original Message]--------------------------
I found the discussion relating to whether or not sexual inequality still
exists very interesting. I am a sociology doctoral student in my early 30's,
but teach undergrads especially Introduction to Sociology. I have had a few
insights into what is going on. In general, young women today do not see the
inequalities that exist because many of the incidences are subtle. Many of us
who have seen a period of time when inequalities were more dramatic are still
very sensitive to the cues. When I ask women and men if they feel that there
are still inequalities against women. I usually get the response not really,
but when I discuss specific issues such as sexual harassment, I get a
different story. The do see that inequalities still exist , but they have a
great deal of difficult in defining what the equalities are. In my class, I
throw out several different types of scenarios of issues that might be
considered sexist or sexual harassment and I then let the class discuss
whether or not these are incidences of it and if so under what conditions.
They have a great deal of difficulty coming to an agreement even among the
women or the men. I think that it is not an issue of whether or not sexual
inequalities still exist, but what qualifies and what doesn't. I think the
present generation isn't very sure. I think it also depends on what your
academic training is (sociology or engineering) and what experiences you have
in the real world that help you define what is and what isn't.
Well I have taken up enough time, but I would be interested if others have had
the same experiences dealing with this age group.
Debra Rusz
Michigan State University
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 20 07:24:11 MST 1995
via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.950320142400.832;
From: J M Brough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 14:25:26 GMT
Subject: Previous post
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Confirm-Reading-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-pmrqc: 1
Return-receipt-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have just realised I made a very silly mistake in the last
paragraph of my previous post. (No doubt some people will say it was
a Freudian slip!) It should have read, of course, that " I do not
think I have to be a vegan to have respect for other life."
I was trying to send it in too much of a hurry, so perhaps it serves
me right!
Sincerely,
June Brough.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 20 08:25:22 MST 1995
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 10:25:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Michelle_Covi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Michelle_Covi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Michelle_Covi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ecofeminism and animal rights
To: Swarr Amanda Lock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, 19 Mar 1995, Swarr Amanda Lock wrote:
> Another question:
> Would there be an ethical base for an ecofeminist to oppose animal
> cruelty based on an inherent belief of the quality of all living beings
> and the right to life?
>
Thank you Amanda for your thought provoking questions and comments. I
am very sympathetic toward your commpassionate world view. Although I
agree with your comments about animal rights and vegetarianism, I take a
bit of a different view.
As a student of ecological systems, I look at the world as a
system, as an interdependent web of life. I agree that humans need to
work to mend the human/animal dichotomy, perhaps we
need to also integrate the other life forms, plants, that we are
depending on for the basis of our food web, and even fungi and bacteria.
Do any of these have an inherent "right to life"? I agree with Lana
Rabkin that there is an essential value, but I'm not sure how rights fit
into this context. Certainly I agree that anyone interested in a
compassionate view of life, as I believe ecofeminist are, would abhor
cruelty, but perhaps we would describe cruelty differently. Is death cruel?
Or is a necessary part of the life cycle?
Since as animals, we are consumers (heterotrophs), we must eat
something in order to live, perhaps our choice of food depends upon how
we fit into the ecosystem. Since I believe I am (and perhaps most of us) are in
similiar rather non-sustainable communities, I strive to conserve
resources (including food, water, energy) as much as possible. I am striving
for a sustainable lifestyle, perhaps if I raised my own meat, it would be
sustainable (it doesn't appeal to me, but it is a viable omnivore strategy).
As I prefer vegetables, I try to eat locally as much as possible, and
garden. Is this view ecofeminist? I'm not sure, but I think it is
sympathetic with the goals of valuing life and seeking to live in balance
with nature, and reconnecting with nature which I believe are ecofeminist
principles. There are many ways to get there.
Compassionately and sustainably,
Michelle
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 20 09:38:31 MST 1995
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 11:35:53 -0600
Subject: fwd: re: Emerging Women -Reply
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------[Original Message]--------------------------
. . . In general, young women today do not see the inequalities that exist
because many of the incidences are subtle. Many of us who have seen
a period of time when inequalities were more dramatic are still very
sensitive to the cues.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I agree with Debra. Incidences are more subtle now . . . less covert but
more frustrating because if you get worked up over them some people
will view you as overly sensitive! This has happened to me.
I'm 25 years old and became involved in the women's and environmental
movement about 6 year ago. I grew up in a Catholic, somewhat
conservative household, but I've always been a feminist. I experienced
discrimination in high school courses. I still experience discrimination
personally (e.g., my in-laws reject the fact that I do not take my
husband's name) and professionally (e.g., recently a male colleague told
me to be "nice and nurturing" to a potential client). In any case, I was not
so aware of incidences of discrimination until I read the books by
relatively mainstream feminist thinkers like Susan Faludi and Naomi Wolf.
I was enlightened; I think these books are good starting points.
Thanks,
Alicia Gebhardt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
