quotes from Carol Adams' immensely important book, "The Sexual Politics of Meat"
http://tinyurl.com/yldka7h
http://www.caroljadams.com/
- The fused oppression of women and animals through the power of naming can be traced to the story of the Fall in Genesis in which women and an animal, the serpent, are blamed for the Fall.
- Manhood is constructed in our culture, in part, by access to meat eating and control of other bodies.
- People with power have always eaten meat. Dietary habits proclaim class distinctions, but they also proclaim patriarchal distinctions as well. Women, second class citizens, are more likely to eat what are considered to be second-class foods in a patriarchal culture - vegetables, fruits and grains rather than meat.
- The sexism in meat eating recapitulates the class distinctions with an added twist: a mythology permeates all classes that meat is a masculine food and meat eating a male activity.
- Ford credited the idea of the assembly line to the fragmented activities of animal slaughtering.
- The more important meat is in their life, the greater relative dominance will the men command. On the other hand, plant-based economies are more likely to be egalitarian.
- We have no bodily agency for killing and dismembering the animals we eat; we require implements.
- Rape, too, is implemental violence in which the penis is the implement of violation.
- In pornography the camera lens takes the place of the knife, committing implemental violence.
- Batterers, rapists, serial killers, and child sexual abusers have victimized animals.
- Women are starving at a rate disproportionate to men.
- Women engage in deliberate self-deprivation, offering men the "best" foods at the expense of their own nutritional needs... In fact, men's protein needs are less than those of pregnant and nursing women and the disproportionate distribution of the main protein source occurs when women's need for protein is the greatest.
- By charging indigenous peoples with cannibalism (and thus demonstrating their utterly savage ways, for they supposedly did to humans what Europeans only did to animals) one justification for colonization was provided.
- Racism is perpetuated each time meat is thought to be the best protein source. The emphasis on the nutritional strengths of animal protein distorts the dietary history of most cultures in which complete protein dishes were made of vegetables and grains. Information about these dishes is overwhelmed by an ongoing cultural and political commitment to meat eating.
- If androcentrism through white racism eliminates competing models for relationships between men and women, white racism upholds a model of consumption that fixates on animalized protein and obscures the use of alternative protein sources.
- White racism distorts cultures that were or are gynocentric and not completely dependent on animalized protein.
- Animalized and feminized protein made up two out of the four basic food groups. Seventy percent of protein for Americans is derived from these two food groups; in contrast, 80 percent of the protein in the Far East is from vegetable proteins.
- Through detachment, concealment, misrepresentation and shifting the blame, the structure of the absent referent prevails: we see ourselves as eating pork chops, hamburger, sirloins, and so on, rather than 43 pigs, 3 lambs, 11 cows, 4 "veal" calves, 2,555 chickens and turkeys, and 861 fishes that the average American eats in a lifetime.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Monique
some vegans I know will be interested in this...sharing, thanks
Carolyn
Thanks so much for tagging me, this is great! ♥
Troy
"- The more important meat is in their life, the greater relative dominance will the men command. On the other hand, plant-based economies are more likely to be egalitarian." That doesn't seem to be true or necessarily true in an industrialized nation's context. Good exploratory piece, though.
Ramin
Shame on us; May we open our eyes and hearts, and create the fair future, as it HAS TO become! (Thanks, Moses, for including me in the discussion.)
Stacey
This is fascinating, Moses, thank you for sharing.
Rev
I use this text in some of my classes. It drives interesting discussions pro and con..
Moses Seenarine
con? lemme guess - men who argue that women have all the rights and that humans do animals a favor by breeding them, right?
Rev
Not really, most of my students are beyond that level of simplicity. Some take on the biological reductionism that runs underneath the thesis of the text and that runs under many theories of patriarchy and anti-patriarchy which argues men are naturally x and women are naturally x and then kind of picks a side from that framework. That framework is Platonic and Euro-centric and doesn't work as you move across many cultures. Even the construction of meat doesn't work. So their arguments are about how the text presents itself as global, but constructs men, women, meat, and the relationship between in a way that we recognize largely because we grew up in Western societies. We read a lot of global feminisms which have a vastly different perspectives. for example, Islamic dress, which many Western feminists roundly condemn is seen very differently by Islamic feminists. I could go on, but there is this tendency by Western feminists to speak for all women in the same way Marx believes he speaks for all economics and so on. The truth is the range of views in the world is far broader than that. So yes, you do get some patriarchal critiques which are easy to dismiss. More serious and thoughtful debates and critiques, though come from other feminists around the world and from non-vegetarian feminists who don't buy the connection she draws between vegetarianism and anti-patriarchal politics.
Moses Seenarine
patriarchal control of women and nature is a fact and are intricately linked; are your students arguing these don't exist?
drawing from dworkin, western feminists have strenuously argued against biological superiority by denying biological difference; however, men don't menstruate and can't have babies - this is not reductionist, but obvious fact - so opposing biological superiority through difference doesn't makes sense;
the sexes are different and every month women are reminded that they are closer to nature, but in a patriarchal world in which thought itself is gendered, women, especially western women, are indoctrinated into men's struggles against nature and in the construction of humans as superior non-animals; this is reductionist and our connection to the sacredness of all animal life is lost in this formulation; vegetarianism and anti-patriarchical politics are not western ideas; much earlier, non-western reformers like mahavira and buddha concluded that eating corpses was unnatural, and the greeks learned from them;
the fact is that from time immemorial, humans in every part of the world have subsisted on a mostly vegetarian diet; white racism is changing all that to the detriment of our health, that of animals, and of the entire planet, as the book clearly illustrates
Rev
No sister, that is a philosophical position whcih I respect but a lot of what Wstern philosophy considers as fact or more specifically biological based is understood in other philosophical systems as socially constructed. Even the definition of what constitutes a fact is not the same in all societies and all cutlrues at all times. I respect your ... See Moreperspective but it's one of many just as her book is not unilaterally accepted by all feminists. There are biological feminists, Marxist feminists, postmodern feminisms, literally hundreds of groups and not all them agree. they all agree about the reality of patriarchy. but they don't all agree about who constructs, who it benefits, how its maintained, and where its roots are. And if you go beyond Western feminism its even more complex. So while they are students who would agree with what you say here, there are those who start from other philosophical grounds and therefore would not and my job is not to push a particular ideology as much as expose students to different points of view.
Moses Seenarine
rev, respectfully, the everything goes, cultural relativism of post modernism is amoral and senseless; there is right and wrong and to accept another's opinion simply because its their opinion is abrogation of social responsibility, which is the duty of knowledge workers; the many strains of feminism each has limitations and advantages, but this does not rule out the possibility of objective truth
it's western feminists who posits that all gender is socially constructed without any basis in biological fact; drawing from ancient matriarchal cultures, women globally have maintained that they are different from men and that humans are part of nature; the fact that men subverted this argument to claim biological superiority over women and animals does not invalidate the fact of biological difference in the sexes
Rev
I respect what you're saying. That is your position. But that is your ideology. It's not the position within my discipline and I have an obligation to present a lot of theories, some I agree with personally., others I do not. I am not ideologue in class, nor do I feel that that is the proper role of a teacher. I don't think for example a Marxist professor should only give you Marxist readings and a Marxist view of the world. They should expose you to Marxism, but if they say Marxism is objective truth to everyone, they are being factually dishonest and also abusing, in my opinion, their role. The belief in objectivity is a philosophical position, but not one universally accepted or not debated. If you read Marimba Ani's book Yurugu you will see for example, that Afrikan traditional philosophies, among others, are deeply critical of that idea as are many other theorists.So like I said I have no disagreement with you believing whatever what you believe, but what you believe is not what everyone believes or must believe. I have studied theory for the better part of two decades and I have learned enough about the world to know that for every idea and philosophical concept there is at least one alternative theory and likely many others. What I try to do is to expose people to as many as I can and let them make a decision what they choose to ideologically accept. I do believe in facts, but I believe what we accept as facts has to do with our worldviews and the paradigms through which we view the world. But even that, is a point of view, which I can argue and you can potentially argue against.
Rev
Also, accept my apologies for the assumption that you were female. I don't often read profiles before responding to substance, so no offense was intended on that. Mea culpa.
Moses Seenarine
rev, i understand the danger of a eurocentric worldview, and its de facto reality, however, we must be wary of the greater moral dilemma in suggesting that as a result, there is no universal truth; gravity is not subjective, and regardless of how we may perceive or what we may call a tree, it is objective reality in that it exist; if there is truth in the physical realm, then the possibility exist for truth and morality to function in the social realm as well; if there is no objective truth or morality, then how does one go about critiquing oppression, murder and genocide?
the author is simply suggesting two truths - (1) patriarchy is a fact, and men's control is constructed in part on the domination of women and nature; and (2) white racism distorts the prevalence and consumption of vegetable protein;
these two facts are clearly borne out by anthropological and historical records, along with our current reality; this is not a theoretical position, and any substantial critique has to present overwhelming evidence to the contrary; simply maintaining a cultural relativist position is untenable and does not critically engage these truths
Rev
I am not wary of it with respect to the classroom since all ideas are presented there as ideas. It is not my job to decide what people chose to believe..at least not there. I have heard all of the arguments you have made. I am also familiar with all of the philosophical disagreements with that position. So what you are arguing for is your belief ... See Morethat people should agree with your position, That's ideology, the language of persuasion. But as a sociological theorist I have to tell you regardless of what you think of them, there are people that have a very different view of the facts and of reality as you have constructed it and as the author constructs it in the book. I agree personally with some of her work, not all. That's why we have intellectual debate. So I am not agreeing OR disagreeing. You are presenting your argument and that's fine, but that is not the only argument about these things. And that was point from the outset. People who have not studied theory often assume that the theories they believe are the only way human could or should look at it. That is usually a function of the ego, which says you should agree with me because I'm right. Ego is fine, but it just doesn't work in the classroom where there are many students with many theoretical and political perspectives and any teacher who becomes an ideologue will not last long and I believe rightfully so.
By the way I am not making an argument for cultural relativism which is entirely different argument than arguing for mere diversity of human perspective. You seem to be assuming that and I have made no such case. Cultural relativism argues that all diversities of views are equally valid. That I don't personally agree with.
Moses Seenarine
rev, thank you for an enlightening discussion and for helping me to clarify my thoughts on these important issues :)
diversity in perspective does exists; one doesn't have to be an advocate to make this a reality; but there is also unity in that diversity, for example, regardless of cultural differences, patriarchal control is a constant across all cultures; this is the contradiction in holding diversity on a pedestal, it serves to blind us to universal truths
respecting all diversity is relativist and amoral, for example, using the argument for the preeminence of diversity leads to justifying patriarchy based on minor cultural differences in practice; "it's their culture, and who are us to judge?" this negates the concept of universal human rights;... See More
if all diversities are not equally valid, then on what basis are we to decide? if we don't teach students how to de-construct diversity, are we not merely leaving them to the amorality of cultural relativism and the chaos of personal bias?
in our discussion, we have looked at the diversity of views regarding biological reductionism, euro-centric thought, vegetarianism and anti-patriarchal politics; in order to get out of the cultural relativist trap, how are we to determine which of these diversities are more valid than another, if not through the objective realities of the suffering of women and animals? "respecting" the views of men and meat-eaters does more than provide justification for continued victimization and oppression; it silences already muted voices crying out for justice
Carolina
Good stuff, thank you!
No comments:
Post a Comment