These images taken from Examples of The Sexual Politics of Meat — Carol J. Adams show a clear connection between the consumption of meat and the objectification of women. Two of these photos show women (or parts of women) as perhaps interchangeable with meat, and two show women on display alongside meat, like an accompaniment, or a side dish.
This is validated by Carol Adams’s interview in Antennae, where she states ” Meat-eating is associated with virility, masculinity. Meat eating societies gain male identification by
their choice of food.” (p 13). Other than eating meat, nothing displays virility or masculinity more than access to sex, which the above photos clearly imply.
Adams also states: “A process of objectification/fragmentation/consumption connects women and animals in a patriarchal culture (they become overlapping absent referents).” (p.13). We can clearly see the objectification and fragmentations of women in these images, and if we allow ourselves to assume the “male gaze,” we also consume these women visually. According to Adams, “Consumption is the fulfilment of oppression, the
annihilation of will, of separate identity.” (p. 14).
When searching for images that feminize and sexualize animals, they’re incredibly easy to find.
Here is a screen grab from a commercial for Frank’s Red Hot. In the commercial, the cooked chicken dances seductively while hot sauce is poured on it. This is what Adams calls anthropornography. In the Antennae interview, Adams defines this term: “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.” (p. 14). When further explaining anthropornography and its power, Adams states “It makes animals’ degradation and suffering fun by making animals’
degradation sexy. Simultaneously, it makes women’s degradation fun because to be effective the advertisement requires the implicit reference to women’s sexualized status as subordinate.” (p. 15).
The advertisement for Frank’s above is seen by consumers as silly and funny. This is because we’ve been taught to disassociate our meat from the death of once living animals. Adam’s explains: “Behind every meat meal is the death of the animal whose place the “meat” takes. The function of the absent referent is to allow for the moral abandonment of a being.” (p. 13) That “being” is our dancing chicken. The sexualization of meat and the degradation of women is overlapping, as pointed out by Adams. “The visual “joke” that substitutes one fragmented object for another can be found throughout our culture.” (p. 13). When we laugh at this commercial for hot sauce, we’re buying in to the continued oppression of non-human animals and women.
Works Cited:
Adams, Carol J. “Carol J. Adams.” Carol J. Adams, 2018, caroljadams.com/examples-of-spom/. Accessed 6 Mar. 2025.
Potts, Annie. “The Politics of Carol J. Adams.” Antennae, no. 14, pp. 12–24, static1.squarespace.com/static/54792ff7e4b0674c74cb719d/t/55dc8dace4b0ad76d7277cb7/1440517548517/ANTENNAE+ISSUE+14.pdf. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025.
Hi Eric! I always enjoy reading your posts you are very articulate. I think that the desensitization of society to the blatant oppression and disrespect to women as normalized through mass media perfectly correlates to the detachment we as a society of meat eaters experience when we think of a once living animal versus the meal in front of us. This quote from the readings this week, “Meat is like pornography: before it was someone’s fun, it was someone’s life” -Adams, (Kemmerer) fits here I believe, like you said it’s funny to laugh at the sexualized headless chicken drenched in hot sauce but before it was antropornography, it was a living breathing creature.