This image was chosen to illustrate the connection between gender and meat. First, the cartoon person doing the carving appears to be a male. That was my initial assumption anyway based off of the fact that it has no visible hair and that it is carving meat. As discussed in the readings this week, meat is generally thought of as a male food, and that is immediately the connection I made with this image and the gender of the person doing the cutting. Also, cutting meat is generally seen of as a “male task” in America, or at least in my experience. I have seen so many pop culture depictions of a woman doing the cooking, whether for a big family meal, dinner with the husband’s boss and wife, or a holiday such as Thanksgiving, only to set the meat down in front of her husband so he can carve it. Even in my own family, I am very close with my cousins, going to visit them for every birthday and holiday and sharing a big meal. My cousin Matt’s wife always does the cooking, but whenever it involves meat (such as corned beef and cabbage), she has him cut the meat, when with every other meal (such as lasagna), she will cut the food into portions herself. The image of the meat being cut by a (presumably) male figure also relates to Deane Curtin’s essay “Toward an Ecological Ethic of Care.” She describes the main points of connection between the oppression of animals and oppression of women outlined in The Sexual Politics of Meat, referencing the “pornographic representation of women as ‘meat’ ready to be carved up, for example in ‘snuff’ films” (Curtin). The piece of meat on the tray here and the animal that it once was is representative of and connected to women being portrayed as ready and waiting for men to have their way with them.
The connection between gender and food extends beyond men and meat, however. Drinks are gendered, especially alcoholic drinks. Beer is typically seen as a “man’s drink,” while wine or margaritas are seen as a “woman’s drink.” Beer commercials generally feature “manly men” doing manly men things, like driving trucks to the bar or liquor store, barbecuing, or cracking a cold one after a long day of work on their farm or at their blue-collar job. Women who enjoy beer are seen as an anomaly, portrayed in TV shows as “like the guys” and to be admired for her different taste, or portrayed as “trashy” depending on the context. At the same time, women are portrayed as loving wine, with t-shirts and tumblers proclaiming them a “wine mom” or something similar. I cannot tell you how many wine-related things I have seen marketed towards women on social media. Fruity mixed drinks and margaritas are also seen as women’s drinks, with men who drink fruity drinks having their masculinity questioned or having to defend themselves and explain to their buddies that it actually tastes good.
The practices surrounding food, such as the way it is prepared or served are gendered as well. Cooking is still seen as primarily a woman’s task, unless of course it is grilling. That task belongs to the men. This is perpetuated in movies and TV shows, advertising for grills, and social interactions in general. Men are always depicted as the ones grilling at cookouts while the women prepare side dishes such as the three types of salad: pasta, potato, and plain vegetable. On TV shows and in a lot of social interactions, women are portrayed as the ones cooking (inside the home, not around a dangerous grill of course). Men who cook are seen as anomalies and praised for cooking for their families, but it is definitely portrayed as a flip of the traditional gender roles. When it comes to serving food, even that is gendered, with women oftentimes serving food to men. As I mentioned the example with my cousin earlier, Matt’s wife usually makes a plate for him, even if he protests and insists he can do it himself (not sure if he does it because he is embarrassed with other people around or if he truly does not want her to do this for him). Her mother was very traditional, and so she has been conditioned to be subservient to men, but she is not alone. Serving food is generally seen as a woman’s task. Cafeteria workers in schools, serving children their meals, are generally women. That is who children grow up seeing, already associating women with serving food. When there is a male, he is usually the “head chef,” or at least seen as the one being in charge of the others, even in TV shows.
Ecofeminists see the gender politics surrounding different types of food as well as eating practices. But they also see the way nonhuman animals are treated and killed for food as oppressive and link that oppression with the oppression of women. As ecofeminist Greta Gaard notes, “animal pejoratives are used to dehumanize women,” pointing out many of the derogatory terms for women that are also words for animals, such as “cow,” “chick,” or “old bat” (Gaard 20). She also notes that “linguistic association with animals has also been a method of demeaning Jews and people of color” (Gaard 20). Ecofeminist Deane Curtin also writes of the associations between men and meat and women and vegetables, with meat being portrayed as a positive thing, and vegetables a negative thing. Ecofeminists see women in particular as being linked with nonhuman animals through oppression. At the same time that women are oppressed in a patriarchal society, however, we are also oppressors, keeping and using animals for our needs at the expense of their own well-being and fulfillment. As Gaard writes, “…many people have come to believe that their well-being can be attained and enjoyed independently of – and even, at the expense of – the well-being of others, both human and non-human” (Gaard 21). She goes on to write “By keeping pets, we strive to shield ourselves from recognizing our own complicity in a system of inter-species domination. As long as we keep captive and show kindness to one or two token species of animals, the others can be experimented on, caged, tormented, eaten” (Gaard 21). In other words, by keeping pets and treating them well, we feel good about how we treat nonhuman animals. We can trick ourselves into believing that we truly care about their well-being, while simultaneously allowing and contributing to the deaths and inhumane living conditions of animals as they are used for food, sport, entertainment, and experimentation. We are complicit in the system of oppression. Gaard goes on to argue that “oppression reduces the humanity of the oppressor at the same time that it subjugates the oppressed” (Gaard 22). We do not benefit from being the oppressors of anyone, including nonhuman animals. While Curtin makes similar arguments, she also brings up the important point that our eating habits in America also oppress people in other countries. Fields that were once used to grow food for the people now are used only to grow crops and raise meat for exportation. What she says next is so important. “One need not be aware of the fact that one’s food practices oppress others in order to be an oppressor” (Curtin). I think this quote is so important. It relates not only to how we in America oppress people in other countries, but those in this country and animals as well. Both ecofeminists argue in favor of contextual moral vegetarianism, or eating a vegetarian diet as long as the context (situationally, geographically, culturally) allows it. This helps free us from at least some of our oppression of nonhuman animals and other humans, as our food is no longer derived from violence, factory farming, or food production at the expense of others. This is good all around, as it makes us healthier and freer. Curtin also makes the valid point that as women especially, we should consider the reproductive exploitation of female animals when it comes to milk and eggs and consider going a step further than vegetarianism to veganism, to be in solidarity with female animals. It is our moral duty to care for others and prevent their suffering, and this includes animals.
Personally, I have been fully vegetarian and drank no cows’ milk for a little over a year. I only eat eggs that come from my chickens, so I know that while it still isn’t great to be doing, at least the chickens have decent living conditions. I decided to cut out meat for the reasons above. I knew I was just one person and that meat and dairy products would still be produced regardless of if I ate it or not, but I could no longer stand the thought of my food coming from the death of other living beings. The conditions animals are kept in for food production are incredibly inhumane (not to mention unsafe to us and unstable to the food supply, like what bird flu has done to the price and safety of eggs and meat products). Switching to being a vegetarian was one of the easiest choices I’ve made, and honestly so easy. There are so many options for meat alternatives, the food is delicious, and I feel more connected to the earth and more free knowing my food is not coming from the mistreatment of animals. I had already decided I was never going back unless the situation dictated it, like if it was my only means to survive, but reading these articles solidified my decision even more, and especially seeing the Animal Kill Clock.
Sources:
Curtin, Deane. “Toward an Ecological Ethic of Care.” Hypathia, No. 6, spring 1991, pp. 68-71. Accessed electronically via Contextual Moral Vegetarianism, by Deane Curtin.
Gaard, Greta. “Ecofeminism on the Wing: Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations.” Women and Environments, fall 2001, pp. 19-22. Accessed electronically via (PDF) Ecofeminism on the Wing: Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations.
Peggy_Marco. “Cook Serve Grill.” Pixabay.
