Product Description

An examination of the historical, gender, race and class implications of meat culture, making the links between the practice of butchering/eating animals and the maintenance of male dominance. This tenth anniversary edition includes a new preface by Carol Adams that answers the question she is most often asked: why did you write this book? Adams also discusses new developments in feminist thought and animal rights, and updates the statistics and information provided.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #43489 in Books
• Published on: 1999-11-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 276 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780826411846
• Condition: USED - VERY GOOD
• Notes:
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

From Publishers Weekly
Many cultures equate meat-eating with virility, and in some societies women offer men the "best" (i.e., bloodiest) food at the expense of their own nutritional needs. Building upon these observations, feminist activist Adams detects intimate links between the slaughter of animals and violence directed against women. She ties the prevalence of a carnivorous diet to patriarchal attitudes, such as the idea that the end justifies the means, and the objectification of others. In Frankenstein , Mary Shelley made her Creature a vegetarian, a point Adams relates to the Romantics' radical politics and to visionary novels by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Dorothy Bryant and others. Adams, who teaches at Perkins School of Theology, Dallas, sketches the alliance of vegetarianism and feminism in antivivisection activism, the suffrage movement and 20th-century pacifism. Her original, provocative book makes a major contribution to the debate on animal rights.
Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
Writer/activist/university lecturer Adams's important and provocative work compares myths about meat-eating with myths about manliness; and explores the literary, scientific, and social connections between meat-eating, male dominance, and war. Drawing on such diverse sources as butchering texts, cookbooks, Victorian "hygiene" manuals, and Alice Walker, the author provides a compelling case for inextricably linking feminist and vegetarian theory. This book is likely to both inspire and enrage readers across the political spectrum: we learn, for example, that veal was served at Gloria Steinem's 50th birthday, as well as of the atrocities of the slaughterhouse. One wishes Adams had been more careful about documenting some of her claims--her contention, for instance, that early humans were entirely vegetarian, requires scholarly support. Nevertheless this is recommended for both public and academic collections.
- Beverly Miller, Boise State Univ. Lib., Id.
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Review
"The Sexual Politics of Meat provides powerful arguments to suggest a convergence of interest between feminism and ethical vegetarianism. -- Agriculture and Human Values, 2002

Customer Reviews

Agree with Adams' assertions, but repetitive, oddly-written
I read this book at the same time I was reading Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade. The two works seem to fit well together in some ways (and I noticed that Eisler quotes from one of Adams' later books in her book Sacred Pleasure). I agree with Adams' main assertion in this book: Throughout modern history meat has been associated with "domination"-type patriarchal values. I don't think there is any question that this meat = patriarchy assertion is true in most of our world's cultures. However, I find The Sexual Politics of Meat oddly and somewhat incoherently written. The book is not really comprehensively anthropological and it's not really comprehensively literary-analytical either. Adams seems to just jump around to (mostly) British-oriented novels and non-fiction works in a very haphazard way. I could not figure out exactly why she chose some of the books that she did. With the exception of some works like Percy Shelly's piece on meat-eating, many of her choices appeared quite random to me. And the other thing that bothered me was that Adams repeated herself a lot. I had trouble keeping track of the different works Adams was analyzing because she seemed to say the same thing about them over and over. Finally, in 2001, I find there is an obviousness to some of the examples Adams uses to make her point about meat-eating and patriarchal values. The Vietnam-era scene about someone refusing to eat meat in the house of prominent military person sticks out in my mind here. Perhaps when she wrote this down fifteen or so years ago, it seemed that our "majority culture" would have sympathized more with the military/macho meat guy. But I think today, more people (or a great many people) would sympathize with the person who refused to eat meat. I guess this book just doesn't seem as radical to me as it probably felt to Adams when she was writing it.

Adam's convictions get in the way of her arguments
The very depth of Adams' convictions about vegetarianism interfere with her ability to make a convincing argument to the skeptical. Quoting people who agree with her does not in and of itself prove that she is right - it only helps if they are making good arguments. But they seem so right and so obvious to Adams that she simply throws them at the reader. If the reader already agrees with her, this no doubt seems very eloquent, but if the reader doesn't, particularly if he/she has already thought about the issues, they are meaningless. She seems to have no idea how the omnivorous reader thinks, and therefore might be persuaded. Anyone making an argument that meat-eating offends god or the natural order would have to offer me a convincing explanation for the existence of carnivores and omnivores other than human beings. The usual argument that they are animals and have no choice makes no sense. If God disapproved of meat-eating, vegetarianism would be the default.

The attempt to equate meat-eating and white racism is beneath contempt and displays an incredible (willful?) ignorance of how other people live.

One unintended bit of humor is Adams' constant reference to "savory vegetables." Everyone I have quoted that to, included one vegan, thinks that is an oxymoron.

I also wonder about Adams' grasp of reality: she seems to confuse fiction with real events and to overrate the value of words. This seems like a classic case of the ivory tower. She offers quotes from novels as one might offer historical events. Adams repeatedly cites an obviously beloved scene where a vegetarian is, for some no-doubt bizarre reason, celebrating Thanksgiving with a very hostile host who not only insists upon putting meat on her plate, but pours gravy over her vegetables. I gather that it does not occur to Adams, as she enjoins vegetarians to rebuke meat-eaters, that we would find that as objectionable as the fictional character finds her host's behavior. I suspect that Adams has lost her hold on the distinction between defending the right of vegetarians to eat as they please (in which I would support her) and harassing other people who don't share their beliefs. Anyone taking the latter authoritarian stand will have to offer me a convincing, entitling authority.

I'll mention one last thing that bothers me about this book. Feminists, in their tendency to view their set of beliefs as a seamless garment, often argue that their other causes are an inherent part of feminism, which burdens feminism by making it more exclusionary. I don't often hear people making the opposite argument and burdening their other causes with feminism. Adams argues that vegetarianism should be considered an intrinsic part of feminism. Does she argue that feminism is an intrinsic part of vegetarianism? Does she tell vegans that they can't really consider themselves to be vegetarians if they don't support feminist issues?

Adams continues this argument in a book entitled The Pornography Of Meat.

Amazon previously threw this review off the website, although it was at the time the highlighted review, but I am defying them and putting it back on.

The Semiotics of Meat
Does eating rice bring "wholeness to our fragmented relationships"? Carol Adams believes that it can, and in this beautifully crafted work she lays out the entire argument. She does not minimize her personal revulsion toward the eating of meat, and the meat industry, but she ventures widely - from there.

This serious, disturbing, and well-researched book covers many interrelated topics, among them women, linguistics, animal rights, violence and terror, political resistance and patriarchy.

Food's meaning and importance to sustenance, spirituality, ritual and symbol and more - is undisputed. Adams' interesting, accessible, and scholarly polemic builds a solid foundation for her fervent wish that feminists embrace vegetarianism, or more accurately, veganism - the rejection of all animal-based foodstuffs.

But Hitler was a vegetarian and an animal lover; and until I got to Adams' deconstruction of that seemingly hideous contradiction, I thought, "There goes the notion of the moral weight of eating habits!" But Adams tackles the topic of Hitler's vegetarianism (for example)efficiently and convincingly, and in doing so removes him from the discussion.

This is a serious, disturbing, and well-researched book. Adams sounds a rational and convincing call for all people with control over what they may choose to consume - to live and eat deliberately and mindfully. Definitely worth reading.