The sexualization of meat is inherently tied to the objectification of women, without the acceptance of one, however hush hush, there would not be the acknowledgement of the other. If women were not on some level oppressed, sexualized, consumerized by the “A” column in life, then meat as it is culturally sexualized would not be so widely accepted. I mean this because the advertisements we see everyday have deeper meaning to them then a lot of people give them credit for. What do I mean by the A column? In Kemmerer’s article on Carol Adams, she discusses the likes of consumers and the consumed. In column ‘A’ we have the consumers: “Man/male, culture, human, white, mind, civilized, production, capital, clothed.” On the other hand, there are the consumed, or ‘Not A’:’ “woman/female, nature, nonhuman animal, people of color, body, primitive, reproduction, labor, naked” (Kemmerer). The importance of ‘A’ and ‘Not A’ to ecofeminism is best described by Kemmerer as, “those in category ‘Not A’ are the consumables: women, people of color, and animals. Adams analyzes advertisements with African American women, revealing African Americans as more likely to be linked with animals and nature, available to white men, and insatiable. She offers examples of African American men being linked with beasts, portrayed as savage, and as of less worth than their Caucasian counterparts” meaning the work of Carol Adams (Kemmerer). This leads me to the analysis of the first image below of world famous rapper Ludacris pictured with the logo of a chicken and beer joint, hot sauce and fried chicken, although it is not the meat he is captured as about to bite, but the shiny shaven and fit calf of a black woman. This directly correlates to the point Adams makes as pointed out in the article by Kemmerer as people of color, especially black women, are seen in the public eye as “consumable.” This is a form of anthropornography, which, “…gives you a hooker on your plate. Nonhuman animals are whoring for you. Nonhumans want you, too. Suffering? Slaughtering? Inhumane acts? No. They want it” -Adams, (Kemmerer). Not only do we see the disrespect of women, intersected with race as women of color often experience the brunt of the objectification of most races of women throughout history, but coupled with the comparison to meat as being consumable is an ecofeminist issue which demands a re-evaluation of the way we think and advertise. The second photo I chose, in the line up below, is of a news anchor comparing meat to the sexuality of men. Specifically, the photo is of a Fox News anchor holding a (gross looking) steak(?) with the caption “Study: Meat Makes Men ‘Sexy.” The correlation seems ridiculous at first glance, but having read several weeks worth of material for this particular Eco Feminism class, I see that the masculinity of men is fragile and holds on by a thread to the importance of certain cultural phenomena such as that men eat meat, and women eat salads (a point I made in my previous blog about eco-feminism and vegetarianism). This is celebrated so much, especially in the US, as pictured below in the third photo I chose from Adams’ gallery which depicts three men wearing matching “Got Maat?” t- shirts which have the outline of a scantily clad woman with the head of an animal, and a banner that reads “meat club,” at what appears to be either a tailgate or a fair booth. The club mentality of men and masculinity being tied to meat and sexuality is most obvious from this photo, in my opinion. A photo which I found on my own, pictured last is a photo taken of a billboard for a restaurant called “Mannys” which claims to have “great legs,” and to drive the point of the sexualization of meat home, there are three turkeys under the logo with women’s legs instead of turkey legs. This directly correlates to the content in the interview with Carol Adams about anthropornography as she states, “anthropornography means animals (usually species of animals presumed to be literally consumable) are presented as sexually consumable, in a way that upholds the sexual exploitation of women” (14). Turkey, which is a meat that is widely accepted as consumable on its own, is advertised further as being even more appetizing through the sexualization of meat by feminizing it. Adams states, “women are animalized and animals are sexualized and feminized” (13). Women are constantly sexualized in pornography, and since men crave the consumability of women, it is normalized and widely acceptable to compare this craving with the consumability of meat. Meat is therefore feminized regularly in advertisements. This is a concerning aspect pointed out in eco feminism, and Adams, as a vegan herself, believes that the need for the exploitation of women by men is directly correlated to the oppression and exploitation of nonhuman animals in nature as consumable by right.
I cannot embed the mentioned photos from Adams Gallery but they are described in great detail above.
Mannys Has Great Legs Link:
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150527/loop/mannys-huge-turkey-legs-wont-be-at-taste-they-might-not-be-back/