doll@eng.umd.edu (Steven Doll) (05/15/91)
[Please - let's not get into an animal rights discussion here. There are
other newsgroups better suited to that. - MHN]
Has anyone noticed a connection between the way women are talked of
or treated in western societies and the way animals are talked of
and treated:
Property, belonging to (a man, humans)
"Piece of meat"
Little concern for the actual well-being of the (animal, woman)
We (men, humans) decide what to do with/for (women, animals)
It seem so tangibly related to the heierarchical mapping where the
position you hold (viz. power) entitles you to act in the most
responsible way you can -- but this you define as the path to your
group's pleasure or security or aggrandizement.
Say you're a feminist: people laugh; make jokes about burning bras...
Say you support animal rights: people laugh; ask you about vegetable
rights...
Steven
doll@wam.umd.edugreg@uts.amdahl.COM (Greg Bullough) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May15.155434.202@eng.umd.edu> doll@eng.umd.edu (Steven Doll) writes: > >Has anyone noticed a connection between the way women are talked of >or treated in western societies and the way animals are talked of >and treated: Apparently you have. However... > Property, belonging to (a man, humans) ...I believe that that explains it all, and it is nothing new. A wife (or a child) has been traditionally interpreted, in most societies, as a part of a man's "worldly goods." Less frequently, a husband and more frequently, a child, have been part of a woman's "wordly goods." I'm not saying that Steve doesn't have a point, only that it's, by now, not really a revelation. >Say you're a feminist: people laugh; make jokes about burning bras... >Say you support animal rights: people laugh; ask you about vegetable >rights... Say you're a Republican: people make jokes about Richard Nixon... I think that Steve is trying somehow to attribute some sinister meaning to the ridicule of various belief systems. I would only point out that being ridiculed is one of the things that makes one belief system distinguishable from the next. To bind any two "-isms" together on with such a thread is, in my opinion, intellectually unsound. Greg
mjm@ahimsa.intel.COM (Marjorie Panditji) (05/21/91)
In a previous article, Steven Doll wrote about a connection between vegetarianism and feminism. There is a book on this subject called (I'm working from memory, please correct me on the title or author if I get them wrong) The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol Adams. This book has been mentioned in Vegetarian Times and in Ms. Actually, there are probably more books on this subject, this just happens to be one book I remember reading about. I'll try to look up the references sometime, but this might jog someone else's memory or give you enough information to find it in a bookstore or library. -- Marjorie Panditji mjm@ahimsa.intel.com -or- uunet!intelhf!ahimsa!mjm I'm a vegetarian feminist. (See? There must be a connection! :-)
simon@ohm.york.ac.uk (Simon Klyne) (05/21/91)
In <m0jfHIy-0000ByC@intelhf.hf.intel.com> mjm@ahimsa.intel.COM (Marjorie Panditji) writes: >There is a book on this subject called (I'm working from memory, >please correct me on the title or author if I get them wrong) The >Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol Adams. ADAMS Carol J. The sexual politics of meat: a feminist-vegetarian critical theory. Oxford, Polity P., 1990. 256p. -S
al885@cwns9.ins.cwru.edu (Gerard Pinzone a.k.a. Ataru Moroboshi) (05/21/91)
This "dehumanization" of women should not be directly linked to animal rights.
Humans are able to kill animals and eat them because they don't view them
as intelligent and feeling beings.
You will find most men who think of women as "pieces of meat" might also
view women as creatures "made" for their own pleasure....nothing more. This
is why some men cannot understand how a woman can be their boss or hold
important positions in a society.
This is also (in my opinion) part of the reason why a man would rape a woman.
In a similar way, most people (as in men AND women) are numb to the fact
another creature had to die for them to enjoy a kind of food that they could
do without.
While we are on the subject of "meat-eaters", human beings, by nature
are carnivors. Our innate violent behavior is because of this fact. The
phrase "men are evil" seems to stem from the observation that human males
seem to be the "hunters" of the species, therefore more violent.
How to solve this? Will abstaining from eating beef make us a more peaceful
people?
=========Gerard Pinzone=======================gpinzone@george.poly.edu=========
_______ ________ ________ Just on the border of your waking mind
/ ___/ / _____/ / __ / There lies another time
/ ___/ / /____ / __ / Where darkness and light are one
/______/ /_______/ /__/ /__/ And as you tread the halls of sanity
East Coast Anime You feel so glad to be unable to go beyond
ELO: "Prologue" -=- Daicon IV I have a message from another time...jill@cirrus.COM (Jill Wilker) (05/25/91)
In <9105180311.AA04256@cwns9.INS.CWRU.Edu> al885@cwns9.ins.cwru.edu (Gerard Pinzone a.k.a. Ataru Moroboshi) writes: >While we are on the subject of "meat-eaters", human beings, by nature >are carnivors. Our innate violent behavior is because of this fact. The >phrase "men are evil" seems to stem from the observation that human males >seem to be the "hunters" of the species, therefore more violent. Please tell me your references on this. Everything that I have read say that humans are omnivores with a prediliction to store fat. But, just because we can ingest and absorb "good stuff" (vitamins/minerals,etc) from both plant and animal matter does not mean that both make up a good diet for us. I would suggest reading: "The Paleolithic Prescription", by ?? "Diet for a New America", by John Robbins "Vegetarian Times" magazine (the most recent issue has a very good article about this - pick up at your favorite newstand/library) Jill ----- End Included Message -----