On Fri, 17 Mar 1995, Jayne S Docherty wrote:

> I have used off-list dialogue with a number of people from this list.  
> Usually because we have a sub-topic which is complicated and perhaps not 
> of general interest to people on this list (such as 
> the nature of metaphor or the applicability of complexity theory to 
> environmental studies).  When we don't want to "bore" people who signed 
> onto the list for other reasons, we go to private mail.  

I find that I'm EXTREMELY disappointed to have missed those discussions.  
I would have been anything but bored!

Faith
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Mar 19 16:42:11 MST 1995
From: Julia Porper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 18:42:09 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: formation of a new group

There is a new group forming in the US.  It's called the "women's
Leadership Network".  It is designed to use the Internet to educate women
about the dreadful agenda of the Republiccan Right and to mobilize women so
that the Right won't be successful in the 1996 elections.  It is open to
politically aware women and sympathethic men who are appalled at the agenda
of the far-right Republicans and are terrified at the thought that the
REpubicans might be successful in electing the next President.  It has two
immediate projects: the creation of a web page on the WWW which will
address the issues from a woman's point of view and the publication of a
Daily Hotline to women activists who can recieve messages via the Internet.
If you are interested in helping with the formation of the group send an
e-mail message to PolWoman @aol. com.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Mar 19 20:24:01 MST 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 22:24:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Swarr Amanda Lock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Swarr Amanda Lock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Swarr Amanda Lock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ecofeminism and animal rights
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Hi everyone!

I am an avid animals rights, environmental, and feminist 
activist, but I have not fully reconciled the differences between the 
three for myself.  Perhaps I will do it here by thinking on the screen. :) 
Here are some questions I have been pondering; after listing the 
questions, I will articulate some of my own ideas.

- What are the connections between ecofeminism and animal rights?  Is 
ecofeminism inherently in favor of animal rights?  Why?

- Is an ecofeminist ideology inherently vegetarian?  How does this fit 
into a global context?  

------------------------
My thoughts:

Ideally, I think that I think all animal testing should be
stopped immediately, all people who have the economic means should be
vegan, etc.  For me this is connected to ecfeminism in a few ways.  There 
are a few primary reasons for this as I can see it currently.  

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.  

2) As feminists we should consider the linguistic and cultural 
associations of men and consuming flesh.  See Carol J. Adams _The Sexual 
Politics of Meat_ (and other related articles) for extremely engaging 
material.

3) Abhoring and actively combating violence (including the outrageous 
violence committed against animals every minute) is essential to ideologies 
of most branches of ecology and feminism; therefore, an ecofeminist 
ideology would fight for animal rights from an anti-violence platform.

4) There are obvious environmental reasons for supporting animal rights 
issues (such as vegetarianism) including: a) overgrazing of cattle 
leads to soil erosion, 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, and c) deforestation 
(these are obviously all tied together).

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.  

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 welcome other questions and responses, but no flames!  Write to me 
personally or via the list.  :-)

-Amanda Swarr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Mar 19 21:06:09 MST 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 23:07:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Lana Rabkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Lana Rabkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Lana Rabkin <[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?


I snipped a large portion of Amanda's message where she brings up some 
thought-provoking questions.  It is this last question posed, 
however, that I'd like to comment on.  I find the idea of a *right* to 
life hard to get my thoughts around.  I think this is partially due to its 
over-use and misuse.  Depending on definition (and motive) the words 
"right to life" are appropriate for a wide myriad of 
ideologies (including opponents to abortion and euthanasia, as 
well as animal liberation groups).  This is why it becomes difficult to 
assume that it is inherent to all ecofeminist thinking.

This may sound like double-speak but I firmly think that someone can 
believe in the value of (all) life without necessarily believing in a 
right to life.

Thanks for all your open-ended thoughts, Amanda.  

Hoping they will initiate discussion,       Lana       

Reply via email to