In some respects we all acknowledge the sexual politics of meat. When we think that men, especially male athletes, need meat, or when wives report that they could give up meat but they fix it for their husbands, the overt association between meat eating and virile maleness is enacted. It is the covert associations that are more elusive to pinpoint as they are so deeply embedded within our culture.
[…]
By speaking of the texts of meat we situate the productions of meat’s meaning within a political-cultural context. None of us chooses the meanings that constitute the texts of meat, we adhere to them. Because of the personal meaning meat eating has for those who consume it, we generally fail to see the social meanings that have actually predetermined the personal meaning. Recognizing the texts of meat is the first step in identifying the sexual politics of meat. (Adams 13,14)
Adams, Carol. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York: Continuum, 1990.
What’s the name of the book again?
Ha! Thanks Dennis. Corrected. 🙂 mean / meat? interesting play on words.
Reminds me of the world war II radio announcement for the “Share the Meat” program. It begins and ends with a stern male voice saying, “America’s fighting men need meat. The best meat. Plenty of it.” Then a butcher (male, of course) talks about the rationing plan — limit of 2 1/2 lbs per week per person — and about how butchers are trying to help “the housewives.” Then a woman says, “As a housewife, I find I can still prepare delicious, nourishing meals. There’s no limit on chicken and fish.”
Interesting. Thanks for sharing, Laura. Adams discusses that phenomenon (though not that particular radio ad) in her book: how meat was for soldiers (men) and not for wives back home during the war.