You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
194 reviews for:
The Sexual Politics of Meat (20th Anniversary Edition): A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory
Carol J. Adams
3.91 AVERAGE
194 reviews for:
The Sexual Politics of Meat (20th Anniversary Edition): A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory
Carol J. Adams
3.91 AVERAGE
informative
reflective
medium-paced
I might need to think about this one more. I've been wanting to read this for a long time and finally got my hands on it. perhaps I'm reading it a little too late in the game because I don't feel like I (as a feminist vegetarian who already gets the connection) learned a whole lot of new things. but that doesn't mean I still didn't find it interesting.
there were a number of things I found insightful but I wish had been elaborated on -- how about how vegetarianism connects to environmentalism connects to feminism? more about how vegetarianism connects to poverty connects to feminism? literal rape (and not just "rape racks" or pigs in Hustler pin-up style) and abuse happens to animals in factories and that really wasn't mentioned either. how and why is it that meat used to be expensive and an actual sign of wealth and abundance but now it's easier for a poor family to buy a few burgers than life a full-time vegetarian diet - when did that shift happen?
I would have LOVED to know more about "What sort of vegetarian-feminist network existed" and the questions she raises about women supporting each other's feminist-vegetarianism (here, I was recalling reading "A Mess of Greens" and how women used food and recipes to connect and communicate). granted, some of that info might not be available in depth, but surely there's something more.
all of this, imo, could have replaced the lengthy literary bits. I don't know that a woman writing a book that mentions eating berries is really a reflection of "vegetarian texts" and important enough to take up a large part of a book on feminist-vegetarianism.
BUT I'm still definitely going to have to get "The Pornography of Meat."
there were a number of things I found insightful but I wish had been elaborated on -- how about how vegetarianism connects to environmentalism connects to feminism? more about how vegetarianism connects to poverty connects to feminism? literal rape (and not just "rape racks" or pigs in Hustler pin-up style) and abuse happens to animals in factories and that really wasn't mentioned either. how and why is it that meat used to be expensive and an actual sign of wealth and abundance but now it's easier for a poor family to buy a few burgers than life a full-time vegetarian diet - when did that shift happen?
I would have LOVED to know more about "What sort of vegetarian-feminist network existed" and the questions she raises about women supporting each other's feminist-vegetarianism (here, I was recalling reading "A Mess of Greens" and how women used food and recipes to connect and communicate). granted, some of that info might not be available in depth, but surely there's something more.
all of this, imo, could have replaced the lengthy literary bits. I don't know that a woman writing a book that mentions eating berries is really a reflection of "vegetarian texts" and important enough to take up a large part of a book on feminist-vegetarianism.
BUT I'm still definitely going to have to get "The Pornography of Meat."
informative
slow-paced
I thought this book was a good starting point for a larger discourse. I would have liked to see her discuss more concrete examples of sexism in the meat market (expand on advertisements that link meat to women). I hope this book inspired more books on the topic that I can find.
Everyone who calls themselves a feminist but still eats meat should try this book out.
Everyone who calls themselves a feminist but still eats meat should try this book out.
challenging
informative
reflective
'So far feminism has accepted the dominant viewpoint regarding the oppression of animals rather than shed the illuminating light of its theory on this oppression.'
'[Feminist-vegetarian theory] resists the structure of the absent referent, which renders both women and animals as objects.'
'A major factor in weakening the vegetarian argument is the time and place during which vegetarian ideas are discussed: frequently at dinnertime over a meal, a time when a vegetarian often finds her/himself in the minority. This creates a political climate in which the idea of vegetarianism is defeated both by the presence of meat and the idea of meat eating.'
'What to a vegetarian or a feminist is of political, personal, existential, and ethical importance, becomes for others only an entertainment during dinnertime.'
(This is why we don't really need the concept of 'vegan rights': animal activists are not the subject of any true oppression; their activism is admirable but also a choice made out of privilege -- the privilege to fight for this non-human cause instead/on top of direct marginalisation or discrimination.)
'Both feminists and vegetarians are accused of negativity because they appear to require that something be given up -- as opposed to their own perspective in which they are emphasising the positive choice.'
'[Feminist-vegetarian theory] resists the structure of the absent referent, which renders both women and animals as objects.'
'A major factor in weakening the vegetarian argument is the time and place during which vegetarian ideas are discussed: frequently at dinnertime over a meal, a time when a vegetarian often finds her/himself in the minority. This creates a political climate in which the idea of vegetarianism is defeated both by the presence of meat and the idea of meat eating.'
'What to a vegetarian or a feminist is of political, personal, existential, and ethical importance, becomes for others only an entertainment during dinnertime.'
(This is why we don't really need the concept of 'vegan rights': animal activists are not the subject of any true oppression; their activism is admirable but also a choice made out of privilege -- the privilege to fight for this non-human cause instead/on top of direct marginalisation or discrimination.)
'Both feminists and vegetarians are accused of negativity because they appear to require that something be given up -- as opposed to their own perspective in which they are emphasising the positive choice.'
It was really good. A lot different from other food books I've been reading. It's definitely a good starting point for understanding the similarities between the oppression(s) of women and animals in particular as absent referents.
Powerful but also feels quite dated. Some problematic generalizations but, placing it in its context, it is quite radical for what it does and claims.
Okay, I get it. I'm glad that I read this. Feminism is related to vegetarianism.
Here's a good quote: "Feminist-vegetarian activity declares that an alternative worldview exists, one which celebrates life rather than consuming death; one which does not rely on resurrected animals but empowered people."
However, the theory is literary, which is usually fine but impractical here. The quotes sometimes feel weird and misplaced.
I'd've preferred a book that focused solely on the historical relationship between feminism and vegetarianism. This relationship, which has been mostly hidden by history, deserves to be recovered. And, while the author does a little of this uncovering in a late chapter, I felt more curious about this research than all of the hobbled-together chapters composed of weird personal anecdotes and random, unexplained quotes.
I didn't know I had so much to say about this.
Here's a good quote: "Feminist-vegetarian activity declares that an alternative worldview exists, one which celebrates life rather than consuming death; one which does not rely on resurrected animals but empowered people."
However, the theory is literary, which is usually fine but impractical here. The quotes sometimes feel weird and misplaced.
I'd've preferred a book that focused solely on the historical relationship between feminism and vegetarianism. This relationship, which has been mostly hidden by history, deserves to be recovered. And, while the author does a little of this uncovering in a late chapter, I felt more curious about this research than all of the hobbled-together chapters composed of weird personal anecdotes and random, unexplained quotes.
I didn't know I had so much to say about this.
This book raised a lot of interesting ideas, but ultimately, the lack of structure and heavy focus on literary criticism detracted from its fundamental premise that feminists should want to be vegan.
First, Adams argues that discourse about meat is gendered. Definitely true, no questions here. However, the fact that meat-eating is gendered by Western societies does not fundamentally resolve the question of whether to eat meat or not.
Second, Adams argues that feminism and vegetarianism are intertwined, both for historical reasons and because discourse about women and animal meat share key elements, like the "absent referent." There's a few brilliant sections - the part about being a vegetarian at the table is very good. However, the parts that are most focused on why people shouldn't eat animal products often state essentialist, binary, untrue propositions uncritically. (Lots of "man the hunter, woman the gatherer.")
What I found most frustrating about the substance of the book was that Adams doesn't do an amazing job of making her core argument for veganism clear, and that she doesn't address how this fits into broader feminist or ethical thinking. Also, no one cares about Frankenstein.
First, Adams argues that discourse about meat is gendered. Definitely true, no questions here. However, the fact that meat-eating is gendered by Western societies does not fundamentally resolve the question of whether to eat meat or not.
Second, Adams argues that feminism and vegetarianism are intertwined, both for historical reasons and because discourse about women and animal meat share key elements, like the "absent referent." There's a few brilliant sections - the part about being a vegetarian at the table is very good. However, the parts that are most focused on why people shouldn't eat animal products often state essentialist, binary, untrue propositions uncritically. (Lots of "man the hunter, woman the gatherer.")
What I found most frustrating about the substance of the book was that Adams doesn't do an amazing job of making her core argument for veganism clear, and that she doesn't address how this fits into broader feminist or ethical thinking. Also, no one cares about Frankenstein.