As this blog continues to explore topics connected to ecofeminism, the readings and images for this week’s lessons are eye-opening. In learning about how Carol Adams looks at the correlation between the patriarchy dominating both women and animals, I was stunned to see the prevalence of these ideas throughout many “normalized” images. Not only are women subjected to domination and sexualization, somehow, the media has done the same with the slaughter and consumption of animals for protein sources.
The image to the right represents both the objectification of the animal that has been killed, as well as the sexualization of the animal and women. The chicken that is plated has no head, and is just a body, with a tie around its waist and the legs up over where its head would be. This is sexually suggestive in regards to oppression, violence, and submission. This image supports the ecofeminism vegetarianism point of view that both women and animals are dominated by patriarchal beliefs and decisions.
Consumer culture reinforces the idea that animals and women are viewed and treated as commodities. The suggestion of “serving” a woman on a platter at an intentionally set table is what Adams references when speaking about oppression of women and animals and connecting death with degradation. The image supports one of Adams’s nine feminist-vegan points, “animals are the absent referents in the consumption of meat. Behind every meat meal is the death of an animal whose place the “meat” takes” (“The Politics of Carol J. Adams,” 2010, 13). This is shown by the headless, lifeless, piece of plated meat. Both the animal and the sexualization of the animal as a woman are exercised via domination and control.
The image of the cow to the left has been objectified to be that of a female cow. With a tape measure around her very small (in comparison to the the rest of her body) waist, there is a reinforced image that women have consistently seen for ages. Women are repeatedly sold the image that they should not only be taking their own measurements, but that they should continue to work towards the measurements that align with socially construed ideals of feminine beauty. Further supporting the idea of cultural and social beauty – often decided upon by patriarchal standards – the cow is sexualized with long eyelashes, red lipstick, and a sexually suggestive and submissive facial expressions as she bats her eyelashes and puckers her lips. As Adams states, “a process of objectification/fragmentation/consumption connects women and animals in a patriarchal culture (they become overlapping absent referents)” (“The Politics of Carol J. Adams,” 2010, 13). In additional support of this objectification, the cow is laying on her stomach, with her ankles crossed, an image that often equates to a sexually suggestive pose.
This image to the right sexualizes both meat and women, as the top half of the image is a burger, and the lower half of the image are the legs of a woman in fishnet stockings and red high heels. We can see the cycle of objectification that Adams talks about where “objectification permits an oppressor to view other being as an object. The oppressor then violates this being by object-like treatment” (“The Politics of Carol J. Adams,” 2010, 13). The image suggests that both meat and women are being consumed here, and done so with authority by men. Once again, the patriarchal standards of sexualizing women in stockings and high heels reinforces how men dominate women and women are there to serve them, for their pleasure. This idea extends to the pleasure that is portrayed when eating meat, in which the continued domination of both women and animals is exerted.
In looking for an ad to analyze, there was sadly, no shortage of material to choose from. While most humans and consumers are generally aware that sex sells, it also seems that the sexualization of women also sells. I chose this perfume ad because there were a few things that stood out to me. To start with, the tagline for the perfume is “life without passion is unforgivable” and the name of the perfume is Unforgivable Woman.
As we can see from the images in this post, Adams’s work can help us understand the different layers of violation that we constantly see in mainstream images – from ads to pop culture, to music videos, social media posts, and so on. In order to move away from the objectification and sexualization of both women and animals, we need to have open conversations about where to start as we dismantle the systemic patriarchal power. With an ecofeminism vegetarianism lens, we can change the narrative, culture, and stand up to the images that we have grown accustomed to seeing in the world around us.
Examples of The Sexual Politics of Meat. (n.d.). Carol J. Adams. https://caroljadams.com/examples-of-spom/
The Politics of Carol J. Adams. (2010). Antennae, 14, 12–24. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54792ff7e4b0674c74cb719d/t/55dc8dace4b0ad76d7277cb7/1440517548517/ANTENNAE+ISSUE+14.pdf
Hi Christine!
I thought that you analyzed the imagery for this week’s blog post very well and your analysis of the readings was well stated. I admired how at the end of your blog post you not only looked at the objectification and sexualization of both women and nonhuman animals, but the objectification and sexualization that is ravaging mainstream media.
The idea that our society is so consumer based, and companies can get away with having ads, like the ones you posted, out in the open where anybody of any age can see, is frankly very upsetting. When companies post imagery that uses the sexualization of women and nonhuman animals for domination and control, it only reinforces the patriarchal idea that nonhuman animals and women are here for the man’s pleasure. When I saw the “unforgivable woman” perfume ad, it reminded me of going to grab shampoo and conditioner from the store and seeing all the men’s scent options like, “Kraken Gard”, “Volcano”, or even “Beast Wash”. The shampoo and body wash names are named after physical strong and powerful things which only enforce how even the names of products that are tailored to men are another way of asserting dominance in society.
Hi Christine,
I share the same sentiment about this week in regards to the topics of anthropornography and the marketing that large corporations have created to entice customers (men) into sales. What’s more is that there was an overload of them. It took me under two minutes to find the image I needed for the second part of the assignment. The objectification of the headless chicken that symbolizes a woman, without the function of autonomy, is designed to be powerless in this case because docile flesh is easier to be controlled.
The teachings from this week are pivotal, most things are interconnected all of our WGS teach us this. Womens forced sexualization has always been a tool of the far reaching patriarchy. Adams speaks how our society is shaped stating, “thus, rather than challenge the inherent inequality of a culture structured around dominance and subordination” (Adams page 20) she says that because we have multiple imbalances in this society we are more susceptible to systems that oppress like anthropornography and because women’s place in society they are placed lower in any social hierarchy that exist.
Hi Christine,
I enjoyed reading your post. I agree that the issue is a consumer culture but I think that that goes deeper into our culture. I think the way we consume and the ad methods that work in our society only work because we already have devalued and dehumanized both animals and women. Our society is inherently patriarchical and our advertisements directly reflect the emphasis on male consumption. In all of the images you selected the meat or animals were cast and portrayed as women, and in some cases even posed in positions biologically impossible to further depict them as feminine. These are again representations of anthropornography as well as further representing women as sexually insatiable animals noted by Adams when she said “Such ads, suggest that not only do women promiscuously want sex, but the same desire is applicable to others in the ‘Not A’ category – nonhuman animals” (Kemmerer).