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
challenging
emotional
informative
medium-paced
In general, the intersection of patriarchy and meat eating is an interesting topic. There must be a reason why 80% of vegans are female. In addition, it's obvious that eating meat is embedded with male identity as seen with male fixation on BBQs, fishing, hunting, etc. Further, men who do not eat meat are typically emasculated as a result (i.e. "soy boys"). What causes this relationship?
I have to admit, a decent amount of this book probably went over my head. I'll talk about what I found interesting below but overall I was a little disappointed that this was mostly literary analysis and critique of language as opposed to looking at the social structures that promote both patriarchy and meat eating.
Adams does a good job in the first chapter of the book discussing how until relatively recently, consumption of meat was directly related to social standing. It was common in most poor households pre-1900's for the men to be the only ones eating meat while the rest of the family ate mostly vegetables. Scientists of the time described that because (white) men specifically were "more evolved" than women, they required "more evolved" protein. Consumption of meat was directly related to power and status. This can explain what we see today where strength is associated with meat.
A good majority of the rest of the book analyzes the "absent referents" that exist in meat eating and patriarchy.
When it comes to eating meat, our cooking processes and language are created to obscure the fact that meat is in fact a piece of a dead animal. We refer to our pet as "him" or "her" but farmed animals as "it". Farmed animals are treated linguistically the same as a chair or a table. We use words like beef, veal, pork to avoid saying cow or pig. Even saying "Chicken thigh" instead of "Chicken's thigh" is a way we distance ourselves from what our food really is. Our food is prepared so that in no way would a strip of bacon resemble a slice of pig.
Similarly, the same is done when sexualizing women. In objectifying someone, the idea that they are real people is taken out of the equation. Like animals, they shift from becoming living beings to becoming objects. In the case of women, the patriarchy turns them into sexual objects.
Overall, I was grateful to have a better understanding of the history of these concepts and vegetarianism in general but I had to skim the last chapter or two due to feeling difficult to get through.
I have to admit, a decent amount of this book probably went over my head. I'll talk about what I found interesting below but overall I was a little disappointed that this was mostly literary analysis and critique of language as opposed to looking at the social structures that promote both patriarchy and meat eating.
Adams does a good job in the first chapter of the book discussing how until relatively recently, consumption of meat was directly related to social standing. It was common in most poor households pre-1900's for the men to be the only ones eating meat while the rest of the family ate mostly vegetables. Scientists of the time described that because (white) men specifically were "more evolved" than women, they required "more evolved" protein. Consumption of meat was directly related to power and status. This can explain what we see today where strength is associated with meat.
A good majority of the rest of the book analyzes the "absent referents" that exist in meat eating and patriarchy.
When it comes to eating meat, our cooking processes and language are created to obscure the fact that meat is in fact a piece of a dead animal. We refer to our pet as "him" or "her" but farmed animals as "it". Farmed animals are treated linguistically the same as a chair or a table. We use words like beef, veal, pork to avoid saying cow or pig. Even saying "Chicken thigh" instead of "Chicken's thigh" is a way we distance ourselves from what our food really is. Our food is prepared so that in no way would a strip of bacon resemble a slice of pig.
Similarly, the same is done when sexualizing women. In objectifying someone, the idea that they are real people is taken out of the equation. Like animals, they shift from becoming living beings to becoming objects. In the case of women, the patriarchy turns them into sexual objects.
Overall, I was grateful to have a better understanding of the history of these concepts and vegetarianism in general but I had to skim the last chapter or two due to feeling difficult to get through.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
sad
slow-paced
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
really funny how a theory supposedly based in compassion reads as so cold and disconnected. formulaic feminist theory is hard to trudge through and it’s hard to feel like the author cared in a human way that didn’t feel academic and impersonal. the first half of this was definitely strongest. i really struggled to get through the literary analysis bits. could have used all those pages to touch on indigenous meat practices or the relationship between meat and marginalized communities (particularly black women). got a little white and peta-esque at points and i think that could have been remedied by less literary allusions and comparisons and more anthropological studies and talking to black women/indigenous leaders (wow she quoted “their eyes we’re watching god” one time!) but i learned a lot of interesting language and concepts within those first 50 or so pages. not sure if this works to convince as much as it does inform or reaffirm though. want to dismiss this as being a product of its time but it’s not that simple for me…
informative
reflective
medium-paced
I would've liked the author to develop more on the colonial aspect of the politics of meat, she barely if at all touches the subject of Indigenous women and I think it would've been important to include them.
informative
slow-paced
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
informative
sad