When I first saw the pictures from Carol Adam’s website, I wasn’t shocked. A lot of these pictures I’ve seen before, whether it be on TV, magazines, or even anywhere on the internet: ads, youtube videos.. It’s hard not to become desensitized. However, when I read Adam’s interview, I felt a number of negative emotions: uncomfortable, sad, and just downright angry. The type of horrid misogyny that is so casually utilized in the meat industry is sickening and just terrifying. If we keep allowing these messages to be constantly advertised to our kids, what kind of example are we setting for how to treat / think of women? I get that free speech is a thing and trust me, it’s important. However, I think that the only solution to this problem is education.
Here’s the first picture I chose to analyze:
As you can see, it’s pretty weird. It’s a picture of Ludacris holding a women’s leg, pretending to eat her leg, and sprinkling salt on it as if it were his dinner. This picture makes me feel weird, man. As a woman, I really feel as though the intention of this image is to draw sexual innuendos to the (likely straight, cisgendered, male) viewer. Images or ads like this one are almost always created for / intended for male gaze. This feels very much like Ludacris is trying to make himself seem manly, cool, and dominant through attempts to show sexual male prowess – which is something that is so very encouraged and celebrated within the male community (much different from how women are depicted as sluts whores, and “asking for it” if we ever DARE show off our sexual prowess…). This image of Ludacris gives off the message, for me at least, that this woman and or women in general are his for the taking. That he can have and has entitlement to women’s bodies as some sort of primal right. Much like some people feel as though eating meat is their primal right. This image reminds me of Adam’s quote from her interview when she said “Meat eating is associated with masculinity. Meat eating societies gain male identification by their choice of food” (Adams 13).
Here is the second picture I chose to analyze:
It’s not too hard to see what’s being said here. The artist of these lovely pins is referring to Hillary Clinton as a chicken, but not in a nice way. “KFC Hillary Special: 2 fat thighs, 2 small breasts … left wing.” Elegant, right? This is extremely and intentionally derogatory towards a woman in a position of such high political influence as Hillary Clinton. Yet, another attempt to shame and scare women out of positions of power, while also sexualizing them… The consumers here are straight cisgendered men, but also conservatives who are usually also straight, cisgendered men. The consumed, is obviously in this case, Hillary Clinton. But this also goes for all other women who dare have a voice or speak out or be in positions of power. I can’t help but feel that this image sends the message that women are just meant to have nice breasts and thighs, and not have an opinion on anything because they are there to serve men, much like how a chicken would be thought.
Here is the final image I chose to analyze from Carol Adam’s website:
Okay, this is just horrible. So horrible, that it’s actually laughable. Who thinks it’s cool to post stuff like this??? Here, women are being compared to actual pieces of meat to be consumed. Desirable for “big breasts” and just willing to participate in sex whenever the men want it. Just as animals are only meant to be slaughtered and eaten / consumed whenever desired.Here, the sexualization of women and non-human animals go hand-in-hand. Once again, consumer: straight, cisgendered men & consumed: women. I feel like this image gives more of a message of “animal’s lives do not matter, and neither do women’s.” It’s actually kind of disgusting. This is directly correlating to Adam’s POV “women are animalized, and animals are sexualized and feminized” (Adams 13).
An image I’ve selected from the internet is this:
This is pretty self explanatory. The woman in the picture is being compared to a pig by having her body parts labeled like a pig would before it is eaten. This sends the direct message that women are consumable to straight men, and so are pigs (as are other animals). This is an AD for vegetarianism by PETA, but they really failed to consider the oppression and objectification of women, not just the oppression / objectification of non-human animals.
Sources
Potts, Annie, and Carol J Adams. “THE POLITICS OF CAROL J. ADAMS.” ANTENNAE , 2010. The Politics of Meat
“Examples of The Sexual Politics of Meat.” Carol J. Adams, https://caroljadams.com/examples-of-spom/
Annotated Source
“Women Portrayed as Animals/Beasts.” Women Portrayed as Animals/Beasts – Ferris State University, www.ferris.edu/moso/objectification/womenasanimals/index.htm.
This website of Ferris State University presented another image for me to reference in my post about the way women and animals are oppressed and degraded. The website also comments on how the specific image/advertisement promotes the idea that women are “just a piece of meat” which directly correlates to the blog prompt.
i think it is really important where you pointed out that this is an attempt to silence Clinton because she dared to have an opinion in a world run by men. If you google Hillary Clinton, the search results are filled with article after article bashing Hillary, tearing her apart. This is a lesson to all the other women who will think about running for office. That this is how society treats women who dare to speak up.
The same is true for every other woman who dares to speak up for the rights of their people. Googling Ocasio-Cortez you get “the cruel dishonesty”, “is an economic illiterate”. For Ilhan Omar you get “harbinger of democratic decline” and “treasonous”. I’m sure there already exists images for these women bashing them in the way that this one does towards Clinton.
Hi Jamie,
Your analysis of both the Ludacris picture and the strange pilgrim picture very much reminded me of men exercising their right to what’s “theirs,” as well as displaying women/animals in a sexually suggestive manner that they appear to “want it,” according to Adams. I have probably said this statement too much, but these images and advertisements really just convey the normalization and desensitization to the realistic process of eating meat and objectifying women. The pilgrim image made me feel very angry. The blatant sexism and objectification of a woman whose existence is solely to please men and the fact that animals are reserved for (male) human consumption truly shows the comparison that is normalized to disregard the importance of women and non-human animals.
As for the Hillary Clinton pins, I agree with your point that the attempt was to try to reduce Clinton into something unfit for political power, and rather going against her politics, they made a personal attack against her physical being. You quote, “I can’t help but feel that this image sends the message that women are just meant to have nice breasts and thighs, and not have an opinion on anything because they are there to serve men, much like how a chicken would be thought…” really resonated with me. With women being placed into such subordinate gender roles, it makes sense that they would attempt to reduce Clinton into the role of a chicken, as someone/something that is seen as weak.