Should a True Feminist Be a Vegetarian - Book Report/Review Example

Student Name Lecturer’s Name Course Name and Number Date Submitted Should a true Feminist be a Vegetarian? The choices of our diets speak too much about our cosmology, politics, livelihood, behaviors, and attitudes. The major question that many would ask is about the interest of vegetarianism interest with feminism. What does vegetarianism has to do with feminism? The fact is that much of the politics and cultural dimensions propose the link between vegetarianism with feminism in hard-on arguments that draw much of the historical and literal parallelism between feminism and vegetarian movements. A critical analysis of the writings of Carol Adams about The sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory, among other references demonstrate how the sensual attitude of feminism is assimilated to vegetarianism and contrasted to meat eating by virtue of various reasons. This paper discusses the question of study, should a true feminist be a vegetarian, under the context of the sexual politics of meat and the feminists’ vegetarian critical theory. According to Adams (p. 231), the vegetarians do not rest with the proof of the healthfulness of the vegetarian body, but they seek to change the meat-eating world. In the category of meet eating individuals, it rather seems odd and discriminatory under the circumstances of feminism and masculinity. However, the vegetarians in general do more than just rebuke the global conscience of the meat-eating consilience of the modern world society. Meat eating female individuals rebukes the patriarchal society since as was realized by Adams (1990), was seen to be associated with the male power. More than that, the colonialists’ male (especially the British colonialists) was for instance not viewed positively for being beefeaters as far as male control and colonialism are concerned. The fact is that there is a general attributes of the meat eaters that does not look fair and perfect with women. One of the worst characteristics of the meat eaters surrounds their zeal of aggression. Meat eating individuals are prone to sexual violence and other discrete forms of violence that have only been associated with men. As stated by Adams (p. 245), outside the small but burgeoning subgroups in the feminist movement such as Eco-feminists, who explore the link between feminism and the environment, including the animal rights, vegetarianism is not considered as part of the mainstream feminism platform. Based on her arguments, the mainstream feminists should be able to understand that meat eating has been part of male dominance throughout the centuries, and that the feminism without vegetarianism is incomplete. It is a fact that the male dominated system oppress both female and animals, thus by arguing for vegetarianism, is part of standing against the male violence, control, and dominance in the society. However, her arguments are not only focused on feminism alone as far as vegetarianism is concerned, but advocates that both male and female become vegetarians. The call for women to be vegetarians in these arguments by Adams (1990) is not only to stop eating meat, but to help men stop eating meat and become vegetarians as well. The aim is to reinforce the historical assumption that meat, the dominance, and the violence associated by it are by far the negative aspects of the male violence and control. Nevertheless, the modern societal system equates vegetarianism with emasculation and feminity because meat eating has been known to be the measure of a virile culture and individualism. Thus, Adams proposes that the modern society revise the culture of its meat eating diet and its power structure. The diets that we have control the power of our mental cognitive analysis and politics. The dietary choices, as argued by Adams (p. 452), reflect and reinforce the cosmology and politics, since the ancient vegetarian cultures were historically known to be also egalitarians. Adams (1990) draws from the historical and the literal parallelism between feminists and vegetarianism movements and connecting the situation the link between meat eating and male dominance as factors that threaten what the ancient patriarchy stood for and their pillars. Under the statements made by Adam (p. 286), there is also a strong case made for the rights of animals. For a number of such reasons, it is argued that the sexual politics of meat has earned a great favor and support of the renowned animal rights activists and philosophers. Some have come to public and hold the declaration of helping change the social custom of killing, eating, and violently endangering animals. Under the presumption of feminism and vegetarianism arguments, Adams arguments sound very academic, yet have great appeals and intense emphasis of the pros and cons of eating meat to the modern society. According to her, much of the male dominance, domestic violence, animal rights, feministic arguments, medicine, and nutrition among other sources of politics have been sourced by the dietary system that mostly escalates aggression and selfishness. However, the acknowledgement of the existence of the vegetarian quest can assist position the individual women’s actions within the contexts that can make them realize the decisions that they make as women. Therefore, the vegetarianism quest model provides opportunity for interpretation rather than distortion. Most of the arguments and literature within the field of environmental ethics are normally seen as attempts to establish rationality, both hierarchical of values in universal rule of conducts based on such values. Environmental ethics, in this case goes beyond individualism and outgrown by movements that are highly emotionally charged like the animal rights and environmental movements. In addition, the members of these movements, mostly women are normally considered sentimentalists and animal lovers in order to be belittled in their concerns (Allen, p. 34-41). Most of these movements protect the brutal killing of animals for food, and today, these movements have taken other dimensions. When Adams (1990) makes her argument in support of the animal rights and environmental ethical movements, she promotes a strong academic backup and support to the reality of vegetarianism and meat eating genesis. In separate argument, Donovan (p. 46) argues that ethics does not demand that we eliminate personal relationships and partial affections, but rather demand that when we act, these actions should assess the moral claims of those affected by our actions. Male dormancy and violence has been characterized by failure to think and assess the magnitude of the effects caused by such male actions. It was not meant to be so, under the natural and religious context, but a system that revokes and arouses the negative attributes of men is responsible for that. Men became eaters of blood and flesh, and so spread that to the society (Coward, 1998). The aspects of aggression, survival for the strong, and elimination of the weak in the society became outspoken and normal. Rationality and solemnity of family were ruined, and the male dominated society has become full of violence, selfish politics, and a man-eat-man dilemma. Adams (p. 240) states that the eating of the animal flesh, an easy task for most people unless a warning is made complexly, is turning to be a problem of psycho-social evolution when human-kind comes to review and release the inner and outer consequences. These consequences are assumed like that of an armed hunter’s life and meet the death of all the emotional aspects of humanity. Only then, will it become possible to distinguish among superstitions, neurotic, and faddish aspects of vegetarianism from its possible ethical persuasiveness. The statements above demonstrate and acknowledge the ethical implication and attachment to vegetarianism. It meaning is linked to the opposition of killing animals, the consequences of which are realized internally and externally. Many meat eaters perceive vegetarianism as a burden for association sakes, superstitious, neurotic, and a faddish without accepting that meat eating also meet the same criteria. The fact is that under the spectra of strength and our need for animal protein, for most meet eaters, the eating of animal flesh is under a great burden of superstition that are revealed in the reactions of the meat eaters to the threat of vegetarianism. Since there is a dominant discourse approving meat eating, the society is forced to accept it, ignore it, neutralize it, or repress meat eating. However, the fact is that for women, especially in the patriarchal culture, additional concerns arises as well. Women are being consumed and swallowed in the whole crisis. Adams (p. 241) quotes… ‘we are the ones whose stomachs do not listen, have no ears, and the ones who seek to be heard from within the stomach that has no ear….’ Anti-vegetarianism acts as a mirror and representation of the patriarchal values. Meat eating is the inscription of male power at every meal according to Adams (p. 241), and a symbol of male dominance that dis-empower women. Adams argues against meat eating in the modern society by virtue of appetite and death of animals. In certain cultures, according to Adams (p.242), rituals are done through the consummation of animals. Such societies are considered non-technological since meat eating represents slaughter. Those who perform such rituals consume the father, as men in such cultures resolve their hostility toward their fathers through killing of animals. Under such cultures, the dead animal represents a father whose power has been usurped by sons and forgiven by ancestors. That is culture, but the biggest question is that do meat eaters do it for the ritual when they eat meat? Adams (p. 244) also argues that the plant world serves the greatest function, in contrast to animals’ world, of supplying food, clothing, and shelter of people. A critical analysis of the food web and food chain begins with plants, but also the human model of the life in its cycle of growth and decay depends on plants. Carol Adams primarily voices her concerns linking animal rights with feminism in a consecrated means. She also focuses on the religious realm as far as vegetarianism and meat eating is concerned. She inherently points to the sexism; racism, speciesism, and violence of the patriarchal culture to people that eat meat (Paxton, 1994). She argues finally that the existences of animals are by far not related to eating and women should not take part in eating meat. The natural law of love, humanity, family among others should exist, hence the primarily of vegetarianism to eliminate violence and male dominance. Thus, feminists should feed on the grace of plants. Works Cited Adams, Carol J. "Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals" in Hypatia, 125-145, Spring, 1991. Adams, Carol J. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. Continuum, 1995. Adams, Carol J. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York: Continuum, 2010. Print. Allen, Jeffner. "Women and Food" in the Journal of Social Philosophy, 15, 34-41, Summer, 1984. Coward, Rosalind. The Whole Truth: The Myth of Alternative Health, Faber & Faber, 1989. Donovan, Josephine, and Carol J. Adams. The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics: A Reader. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. Print. Fiddes, Nick. Meat, a Natural Symbol. London, Routledge, 1991. GT2868.F53 Inness, Sherrie A, ed. Cooking lessons: the politics of gender and food. Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield 2001. GT2853.U5 .C66/2001 Lupton, Deborah. Food, the Body and the Self. London, Sage, 1996. TX357.L87 McKenna, Erin. "Feminism and Vegetarianism: A Critique of Peter Singer" in Philosophy in the Contemporary World, 1(3), 28-35, Fall, 1994. McKenna, Erin. "Women, Power, and Meat: Comparing The Sexual Contract and The Sexual Politics of Meat" in the Journal of Social Philosophy, 27(1), 47-64, Spring 1996. Pateman, Carole. "The Sexual Contract and the Animals" in the Journal of Social Philosophy, 27(1), 65-80, Spring 1996. Paxton George, Kathryn. "Should Feminists Be Vegetarians?" in Signs, 19, 2, 1994. Read More