Although the article presents some valid points, the evidence Adams provides to back these points up seems circumstantial, consequential and outdated. It begins with an excerpt from an ancient myth and cites data from the nineteenth century; I am fully aware of the author's desire to attach a certain historicity to the "sexism" of meat, however in our "technological societies," (to use her own language) we do not have food shortages or the need to ration meat (Adams 38). Yes, I suppose that in England during the 1850's working-class women's martyr-like abstinence from meat, spoke to the inherently ingrained, sexist tendencies of their culture- in nineteenth century English society. We are living in America almost 160 years later... for me personally, the links do not connect.
Secondly, the sexist values which Adams proposes are entwined within the idea of meat and its consumption, are valid only if you adhere to the supposition that vegetables are/have been viewed as "second- class foods" (Adams 36). I strongly agree with this statement in its application to past societies of western culture, and even to our own through the 1960s. However in our current age of American culture, I simply cannot believe that meat eating is a vigorously encouraged, manly trend. I mean, of course you will always have more people eating meat than subscribing to a vegan or vegetarian diet- humans have been from the outset a carnivorous creature. But to ignore the growing trend of vegetarianism, "vegan ism" and popular ascription to organic and raw food diets, (not to mention the supposed trendiness this lifestyle choice connotes) would be foolish.
Intrigued by her reasoning, I visited Adams' website and viewed the slide show that accompanied her talk, "The Sexual Politics of Meat," and was surprised to see it consisted of advertisements. These were posters advertising the different cuts of cow-meat by diagramming an attractive, cartoon woman's body like a butcher would diagram a cow's (flank, loin, etc.); comparing a chicken leg to the side profile of a woman's leg, clad in a high-waisted 80's bikini; a chicken sandwich described by Burger King as a "Tasty Chick," and other such meat/sexual/female inferiority innuendo.
However blatant these slides were in delivering their ideology, they seemed older (80s/90s) and of no help in linking meat with sexism today through the way (chap. 1), "The Sexual Politics of Meat," speaks of meat. I guess this is just because I haven't read the whole book, but the message I took away from the slides was, "meat is used to denote sex through its comparison to women's bodies (the objectification/animal (carnal) re-ification of women as meat). This viewpoint is something worth talking about, but not something that is brought up in the excerpt we have in our reader.
We are instead left with statements like, "[r]acism is perpetuated each time meat is thought to be the best protein source" (Adams 42). This statement is to me, completely off the wall (to use an unfortunately apt colloquialism) and insubstantial in its foundations/support- as offered by its author. I refuse to make the huge leap from acknowledging the sexist implications of meat and who ate it in the nineteenth century, to deeming vegetarianism as the "cure" for racism. This is absolutely outlandish.
Perhaps if the author had focused less on generalizing and building an argument, and more on either drawing the ties of older societies' relationships to meat and sexism- or of our current society's relationship to meat and sexual innuendo. However instead, she focuses on many different things (I'm speaking solely of the excerpt in our reader) and does not convince me of any connections between who ate meat and who didn't in the past, with racism and sexism in our culture today.
I will concede 100% that meat is associated with men; to be manly is to BBQ and knock back the proverbial bud-light with the guys while talking about pussy. But this does not mean that when I eat meat, when my brother eats meat, or when my room-mate eats meat, we are perpetuating stereotypes of race and sex.
If Adams wanted to write a truly convincing article I think she would have done better to focus on the links between advertising and the media's relationship to the portrayal of meat. This is a more modern and applicable way of approaching this issue- especially since t.v. controls the majority of America anyway. She could have also brought up the phallic references to meat in our culture- especially with the obvious implications that this symbol-logy holds for women. Even more current- she could have talked about the weight/body-image issues associated with eating vegetables and the "waif-look" that is becoming the standard in today's starlets and in young Hollywood (Rachel Zoe anyone??).
OK, I've ranted on for way too long. Basically, I guess I'm saying she has a good point, but her argument is characterized by incongruity and is inapplicable to our society's current relationship to meat. She seems to jump from example to example, with the insertion of random quotes and somewhat anecdotal evidence; the end effect is a diminishing one that leaves the reader confused and slightly annoyed. Her ideas seem well researched, but the threads lead to no-where as she unravels to no conclusion. All and all, the text seemed too rigid and idealistic- she needs to come down to street level and get off the high-horse of her crusade.
No comments:
Post a Comment