Take a photo of a barcode or cover
allymute's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
tense
slow-paced
4.25
Adams' concept of the "absent referent", or an image that separates the meat eater from the killing of an animal in their consumption, is incredibly astute. How many of us would cease to eat meat, or limit our intake, if we personally conducted the slaughter? The absent referent also separates the exploitation of animals to the exploitation of women. Everyday we see the connection between the oppression of women to the oppression of animals, from domestic violence/animal cruelty, to physical objectification, to the actual farming of human feminized bodies and their reproductive abilities.
Sometimes Adams' analogies feel incomplete in their evidence or completely miss the mark. One particular example is how a vegan feminist would invoke violence against animals regarding dismemberment of her text, like how a Black feminist writer would invoke the lynching of her work. I get the intended analogy, but this misses the mark on the brutal image lynching holds in American history.
Despite my critiques, I still think The Sexual Politics of Meat is a necessary text in the eco-feminist canon. Adams acknowledges intersectional erased eco-feminist history, and provides a path forward.
Sometimes Adams' analogies feel incomplete in their evidence or completely miss the mark. One particular example is how a vegan feminist would invoke violence against animals regarding dismemberment of her text, like how a Black feminist writer would invoke the lynching of her work. I get the intended analogy, but this misses the mark on the brutal image lynching holds in American history.
Despite my critiques, I still think The Sexual Politics of Meat is a necessary text in the eco-feminist canon. Adams acknowledges intersectional erased eco-feminist history, and provides a path forward.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Animal cruelty and Sexism
casperpumpkin's review against another edition
5.0
Still relevant today. You'd be amazed by how often women are referred to as meat in pop culture. Quite disconcerting.
mirrortower's review against another edition
3.0
interesting ideas but not necessarily compelling/persuasive to someone who doesn't already subscribe to some vegetarian lines of reasoning. kind of made me want to try vegetarianism not really for the reasons outlined in the book but really just to see what all the fuss is about...
cin3matic's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting theories, but pretty hard to get through in some areas. Her discussion of the connecting 'absent referent' in the consumption of meat/women is the strongest argument in the book.
maayasaurus's review against another edition
3.0
Finally finishing this book feels like a major accomplishment - because of the weight of the content, of course, but also because it reads with the impersonal coldness of a textbook. After over a month of slogging through this one, I'm definitely proud of myself for getting through it but disappointed that I can't imagine ever recommending it to anyone in my personal life who would ever be willing to attempt to tackle this beast for more than 30 pages.
The content of the book is technically spot-on and makes several great points and connections between those points, I'll give it that much. But personal enjoyment was limited only to the more recent additions of the prefaces and epilogue which gave me more of what I enjoy most in non-fiction: personal anecdotes and a bit of humor all written up in a more conversational tone that was easy to digest without having to backtrack and reread every paragraph three times each.
The content of the book is technically spot-on and makes several great points and connections between those points, I'll give it that much. But personal enjoyment was limited only to the more recent additions of the prefaces and epilogue which gave me more of what I enjoy most in non-fiction: personal anecdotes and a bit of humor all written up in a more conversational tone that was easy to digest without having to backtrack and reread every paragraph three times each.
candybears's review against another edition
5.0
This will be too radical for many people, but for me it was near perfection.
cal_silas's review against another edition
4.0
This book was a little too academic for me. Other than my issues with the author's style, which makes the book less accessible, and therefore less useful in terms of animal rights activism, she has some really good analysis. I honestly never considered the connections between feminism and veganism before picking this up. My favorite part is her critical look at the feminization of animals/meat in advertising and her perspective on the language we use to talk about meat (dead animals) and gender-based violence.
tea_eats's review against another edition
challenging
slow-paced
0.25
Okay did this book influence the way I interpret media? Yes. Was it incredibly boring, condescending, and bizarrely hard to follow? Also yes.
oleanderjune's review against another edition
2.0
I agree that there are links between vegetarianism and feminism, but Adams' books is only a decent beginning into exploring their connection.
Her entire book presupposes there is only one reason for going vegetarian - that it is inhumane and immoral to consume animals. Period. Try sticking any other sort of reasoning, and her argument falls apart. I think she fails to see the shades of gray when it comes to vegetarianism.
What seriously turned me off was her implied disgust for feminists who eat meat. All of chapter 2 was a veiled criticism of omnivorous feminists - apparently eating meat puts you right along with the rest of patriarchy.
I think this alliance of feminist and vegetarian theories should be further explored, but not by Adams.
Her entire book presupposes there is only one reason for going vegetarian - that it is inhumane and immoral to consume animals. Period. Try sticking any other sort of reasoning, and her argument falls apart. I think she fails to see the shades of gray when it comes to vegetarianism.
What seriously turned me off was her implied disgust for feminists who eat meat. All of chapter 2 was a veiled criticism of omnivorous feminists - apparently eating meat puts you right along with the rest of patriarchy.
I think this alliance of feminist and vegetarian theories should be further explored, but not by Adams.