Research of feminist-veganism is the oldest of such research, and was mainly begun by writer and women’s rights scholar Carol J. Adams in 1989 when she published the book The Sexual Politics of Meat. In this book, Adams (1990) argues for the connection between meat-eating and masculinity, claiming that consuming meat is usually associated with virility and only strengthens stereotypes placed upon any gender. Drawing upon historical research, she shows that this connection existed when men were the only people in power, as they always ate meat and excessive consumption of meat was considered to be a sign of wealth (Adams, 1990, p. 26). This history of sexism within meat consumption is still covert in the current state of society, as such attitudes have been ingrained and not widely addressed. Furthermore, Adams (2006) explains in a later interview her analysis of the abuse of the female reproductive system in farm animals, pointing out how female chickens and cows are the most abused and also arguing that the industry thrives and profits off of this abuse (p. 126).
After the animal is dead, she says the concept of “absent referent” becomes relevant, which is the idea that the dead animal or the sexualized woman is not considered when a product made by them is consumed (Adams, 1990, p. 42). For example, when one eats a burger, the animal is the absent referent because the living being is not thought of or considered, and when a woman is compared to meat, the animal is again the absent referent. In contrast, when an animal is sexualized with comparisons to a woman, the woman is the absent referent because she is not thought of or considered. The absent referent problem leads many to be distant from the negative impacts of the meat ...
... middle of paper ...
...humans need meat and humans should treat themselves just as wild animals do and participate in the natural food chain (p. 30). In defense of the combination, Sheri Lucas (2005) mentions that not all vegetarians or vegans take the same stance or have the same goals (p. 167). Also against the popular counter-argument is that it is the western world forcing themselves on other cultures, she counters that there are vegans everywhere that do it on their own accord (Lucas, 2005, p. 165). Furthermore, she points out that vegans are still a decent minority of most Americans, and they are just as healthy as meat-eaters (Lucas, 2005, p. 166). Often people against veganism and vegan-feminism claim humans have to eat meat to get protein and be healthy, but plenty of people are healthy on raw vegan diets, and a healthy diet relies on much more than protein (Lucas, 2005, p. 168).
The argumentative article “More Pros than Cons in a Meat-Free Life” authored by Marjorie Lee Garretson was published in the student newspaper of the University of Mississippi in April 2010. In Garretson’s article, she said that a vegetarian lifestyle is the healthy life choice and how many people don’t know how the environment is affected by their eating habits. She argues how the animal factory farms mistreat the animals in an inhumane way in order to be sources of food. Although, she did not really achieve the aim she wants it for this article, she did not do a good job in trying to convince most of the readers to become vegetarian because of her writing style and the lack of information of vegetarian
Jonathan Safran Foer wrote “Eating Animals” for his son; although, when he started writing it was not meant to be a book (Foer). More specifically to decide whether he would raise his son as a vegetarian or meat eater and to decide what stories to tell his son (Foer). The book was meant to answer his question of what meat is and how we get it s well as many other questions. Since the book is a quest for knowledge about the meat we eat, the audience for this book is anyone that consumes food. This is book is filled with research that allows the audience to question if we wish to continue to eat meat or not and provide answers as to why. Throughout the book Foer uses healthy doses of logos and pathos to effectively cause his readers to question if they will eat meat at their next meal and meals that follow. Foer ends his book with a call to action that states “Consistency is not required, but engagement with the problem is.” when dealing with the problem of factory farming (Foer).
Taylor, Alexander and Sunaura Taylor, “Is It Possible to Be a Conscientious Meat Eater?” Rpt in Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Barnet, Sylvia and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St.Martins. 2011. Print. 199-204.
One issue the documentary highlights is the abuse of animals and workers by the food companies, in order to reveal how the companies hide the dark side of the food world from the public. In several instances, we see animals being treated cruelly. The workers have little regard for the lives of the animals since they are going to die anyways. Chickens are grabbed and thrown into truck beds like objects, regulation chicken coups allow for no light the entire lives of the chickens, and cows are pushed around with fork lifts to take to slaughter. Many chickens are even bred to have such large breasts that their bones and organs cannot support their bodies. These chickens cannot walk and they even wheeze in pain for the cameras. The film is clearly using the unacceptable premise fallacy of appeal to emotion in this instance, because the viewer is meant to feel pity at the sight of the abused animals. This supports their conclusion, because many American’s imagine their food coming from a happy, country farm and would be horrified to know the truth.
Rachels, J. (2013). The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism. In L. Vaughn, Contemporary Moral Arguments - Readings in Ethical Issues Second Edition (pp. 617-622). New York: Oxford University Press.
Woman qua meat is a reiterated conceit”. There is a great deal of truth to Cornyetz’s criticism of women being metaphors for meat and vice versa. Jane herself pitched the “Wife of the Week” featured in the show as “appetizing…the Meat Made Manifest: ample, robust, yet never hard to digest” (Ozeki, 8.2). The show’s goal is to promote masculine American beef to female Japanese consumers (Chiu). In My American Wife, women are relentlessly being linked to meat and Cornyetz also goes further to suggest that they are being linked to “capital – as objects for (male) sexual consumption”. This expansion of Cornyetz’s argument is important since it highlights the depiction of both meat and women in a pornographic light and represents the insinuation of a fractured America (Chiu, 112.1); as “appetizing” (Ozeki, 8.2).
Reed, Lawrence. “Ideas and Consequences: Of Meat and Myth.” The Freeman, 1994. Accessed April 23, 2014.
Though vegetarianism was never a taboo subject as are some other controversial topics, The question of whether or not human beings should live off meat still is highly discussed amongst all types of people. Spiritual leaders, activists, scientists, and doctors have spoken up on behalf of their group’s opinion. Amongst the arguments of what is right when it comes to the food chain, resonating on many a mind is where the concept of vegetarian came from. Was it started as a religious virtue or a moral decision? Perhaps it was a forced lifestyle or a diet trend gone wrong (or right depending). Health wise, which is better for us? Educating ourselves by answering these questions helps us answer the, perhaps, most important question of all. Which lifestyle will we, as individuals, choose?
However, Hare’s pro demi-vegetarian argument provides an unequivocal view on the discussion of economic, ecological, and moral topics. While the look into market trends of meat is lacking Hare discusses a reality of the meat industry and its food competitors, that being the cost behind animal rearing and husbandry. While the high costs incurred does not entail permissibility the surrounding circumstances do. If fodder is grown on terrain only suitable for a pasture, then as a result husbandry and animal domestication (and later slaughter) is permissible because the economic consequences of harvesting crops would greatly outweigh the benefits and as such the community improves more from the meat/animal byproduct industry. This economical and ecological argument is one of several that Hare provides in his article Why I Am Only A Demi-Vegetarian, in addition to the market term being coined and reasoning behind
Although vegetarians come in many forms, they are often thought to hold to a few set positions. Unfortunately, as is often the case, ascribing all (or most) vegetarians to specific camps is improper. One suspected position claims that it is wrong (or immoral) to eat meat-an act that obviously requires the slaughtering of the animal in question. Though some vegetarians hold to this position, I do not. While it is problematic that people eat excessive amounts of meat, eating meat isn't immoral in my view. And while I don't think meat eaters are somehow wrong, I certainly can understand and respect the position that eating meat is immoral. A second stereotypic position holds that vegetarians despise meat eaters. While there are certainly vegetarians that have issues with meat eaters, I suspect they are no more than the number of meat eaters that find vegetarians objectionable for some reason or another. I believe there are many acceptable ways to think and act and, thus, I don't begrudge those that eat meat or those that choose to think that it is immoral to do so.
Gender seems to have a significant impact on the attitudes towards animal welfare. Despite the fact that the ethical nature of factory farming animals is a questionable topic, males seem to significantly consume more meat products than females. This is due to the fact that women have stronger negative attitudes toward animal experimentation, animal use and suffering (Eldridge & Gluck, 1996). Commonly, females express repulsion as well as negative attitudes towards consuming meat compared to men. Research have shown that this behavior among women is linked to post animal domestication (Phillips, 2009). In the past, women typically looked after animals at home in societies where animals are domesticated while men were involved in breadwinning
We neatly separate animals into relatively artificial categories – “pets”, “wild animals”, and “farm animals”. These categories affect how we treat those within the category. For instance, our treatment of farm animals would be illegal if applied towards pets. If a shed filled with cages was then crammed by dogs so tightly that limits them to stretch or move freely, one would face strong social and legal sanction, but would probably differ in the case for chickens. According to two recent studies by Kristof Dhont and Gordon Hodson, it was observed that conservatives consume more meat and exploit animals more because they dismiss the threat that vegetarianism and veganism supposedly pose to traditions and cultural practice, and they feel more entitled to consume animals given human “superiority”. Aside from that, the study also examined the possibility of both conservatives and socialists in simply preferring the taste of meat thus consuming them. It appeared that the conservatives are more likely to consume more meat for reasons related to ideology, even after statistically removing the influence of hedonistically liking the taste of meat from the
For several years the issue of eating meat has been a great concern to all types of people all over the world. In many different societies controversy has began to arise over the morality of eating meat from animals. A lot of the reasons for not eating meat have to deal with religious affiliations, personal health, animal rights, and concern about the environment. Vegetarians have a greater way of expressing meats negative effects on the human body whereas meat eaters have close to no evidence of meat eating being a positive effect on the human body. Being a vegetarian is more beneficial for human beings because of health reasons, environmental issues, and animal rights.
Let me begin with the words by George Bernard Shaw: ‘Animals are my friends and I don’t eat my friends’. This indicates the ethic aspect of meat consumption. In fact, people often don’t realize how animals are treated, but they can see commercial spots in their TV showing smiling pigs, cows or chickens, happy and ready to be eaten. My impression is that there can’t be anything more cruel and senseless. It is no secret that animals suffer ...
Every person has the ability to make their own choice of whether to eat meat or not. However, eating meat is directly tied to negative health effects, pollution leading to a depletion of ozone, and the depletion of hundreds of thousands of acres of land “wasted” on animal production when they could be used to solve the hunger crisis or lower emission levels. What humans eat is no longer a matter of choice; it has become a matter of life and death. Literally, the future of the whole planet rests on the decision of whether or not to eat meat. If humans chose to eat less meat the world that wouldn’t have to suffer the consequences (outlined above.) Vegetarianism is one possibility, as is Veganism; however the world would be