Research of feminist-veganism is the oldest of such research, and was mainly begun by writer and women’s rights scholar Carol J. Adams in 1989 when she published the book The Sexual Politics of Meat. In this book, Adams (1990) argues for the connection between meat-eating and masculinity, claiming that consuming meat is usually associated with virility and only strengthens stereotypes placed upon any gender. Drawing upon historical research, she shows that this connection existed when men were the only people in power, as they always ate meat and excessive consumption of meat was considered to be a sign of wealth (Adams, 1990, p. 26). This history of sexism within meat consumption is still covert in the current state of society, as such attitudes have been ingrained and not widely addressed. Furthermore, Adams (2006) explains in a later interview her analysis of the abuse of the female reproductive system in farm animals, pointing out how female chickens and cows are the most abused and also arguing that the industry thrives and profits off of this abuse (p. 126).
After the animal is dead, she says the concept of “absent referent” becomes relevant, which is the idea that the dead animal or the sexualized woman is not considered when a product made by them is consumed (Adams, 1990, p. 42). For example, when one eats a burger, the animal is the absent referent because the living being is not thought of or considered, and when a woman is compared to meat, the animal is again the absent referent. In contrast, when an animal is sexualized with comparisons to a woman, the woman is the absent referent because she is not thought of or considered. The absent referent problem leads many to be distant from the negative impacts of the meat ...
... middle of paper ...
...humans need meat and humans should treat themselves just as wild animals do and participate in the natural food chain (p. 30). In defense of the combination, Sheri Lucas (2005) mentions that not all vegetarians or vegans take the same stance or have the same goals (p. 167). Also against the popular counter-argument is that it is the western world forcing themselves on other cultures, she counters that there are vegans everywhere that do it on their own accord (Lucas, 2005, p. 165). Furthermore, she points out that vegans are still a decent minority of most Americans, and they are just as healthy as meat-eaters (Lucas, 2005, p. 166). Often people against veganism and vegan-feminism claim humans have to eat meat to get protein and be healthy, but plenty of people are healthy on raw vegan diets, and a healthy diet relies on much more than protein (Lucas, 2005, p. 168).
The argumentative article “More Pros than Cons in a Meat-Free Life” authored by Marjorie Lee Garretson was published in the student newspaper of the University of Mississippi in April 2010. In Garretson’s article, she said that a vegetarian lifestyle is the healthy life choice and how many people don’t know how the environment is affected by their eating habits. She argues how the animal factory farms mistreat the animals in an inhumane way in order to be sources of food. Although, she did not really achieve the aim she wants it for this article, she did not do a good job in trying to convince most of the readers to become vegetarian because of her writing style and the lack of information of vegetarian
.... People do not have to become vegetarians, but people should consider other meat and food as alternatives. Ultimately, if a majority of people chose organic farms and foods it would put a heavy hit on the meat production business. People will be eating healthier, and they will be doing their healthy part in the ecosystem and that will help to lower greenhouse gas emissions and greatly improve treatment of animals. The prices of organic food just need to come down dramatically for people to buy it. Methane from liquid manure, nitrous oxide from manmade fertilizers, carbon dioxide from machines are why people have put themselves and animals into a dilemma and made it into a never-ending continuous cycle.
People can be classified into two categories, meat eaters and non meat eaters. Meat eaters or carnivores are common in society so there has to be a tremendous amount of meat production to meet these needs. But has anyone ever thought about the amount of fuel and energy it takes to make it and how it would ultimately destroy the Earth? Many have and it revealed to them that the cost of being a vegan or vegetarian is far less than continuing their carnivorous ways. Two authors have their opinions to offer, even if they are on the same side of the argument and want to convert people to being a vegan. In “Eating Green” Margaret Lundberg states why becoming a vegan is healthy, not only for the person, but also the environment. John Vidal’s “10 Ways Vegetarianism Can Help Save the Planet”
One issue the documentary highlights is the abuse of animals and workers by the food companies, in order to reveal how the companies hide the dark side of the food world from the public. In several instances, we see animals being treated cruelly. The workers have little regard for the lives of the animals since they are going to die anyways. Chickens are grabbed and thrown into truck beds like objects, regulation chicken coups allow for no light the entire lives of the chickens, and cows are pushed around with fork lifts to take to slaughter. Many chickens are even bred to have such large breasts that their bones and organs cannot support their bodies. These chickens cannot walk and they even wheeze in pain for the cameras. The film is clearly using the unacceptable premise fallacy of appeal to emotion in this instance, because the viewer is meant to feel pity at the sight of the abused animals. This supports their conclusion, because many American’s imagine their food coming from a happy, country farm and would be horrified to know the truth.
PETA released a poster featuring actress, and former model, Pamela Anderson, wearing a skimpy bikini; with her body parts marked, as they would be were she an animal (Appendix 3). The advertisement is meant to promote vegetarianism by arguing that animals and women have the same parts, but it seems as though it is only aimed towards heterosexual men. This brings about the concept of metaphorical sexual butchering, which Adams proposes as something that “silently invokes the violent act of animal slaughter while reinforcing raped women’s senses of themselves as “pieces of meat”” (Adams, 69.2). Ironically, this is not dissimilar to the image of a woman used on Adams’ cover for The Sexual Politics of Meat (Appendix 1), which actually aims to criticize the issue of women being a metaphor for
One of the reasons that vegans don't believe we should eat animals is because we don't have the right to eat them. They believe that those animals have the same exact rights that humans have. The animals feel pain and have the exact same feelings that human beings do. What these people don't realize ...
“The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that their treatment has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."(Schopenhauer). I always wondered why some people are not so drawn to the consumption of meat and fed up with only one thought about it. Why so many people loathe of blood, and why so few people can easily kill and be slaughter animal, until they just get used to it? This reaction should say something about the most important moments in the code, which was programmed in the human psyche. Realization the necessity of refraining from meat is especially difficult because people consume it for a long time, and in addition, there is a certain attitude to the meat as to the product that is useful, nourishing and even prestigious. On the other hand, the constant consumption of meat has made the vast majority of people completely emotionless towards it. However, there must be some real and strong reasons for refusal of consumption of meat and as I noticed they were always completely different. So, even though vegetarianism has evolved drastically over time, some of its current forms have come back full circle to resemble that of its roots, when vegetarianism was an ethical-philosophical choice, not merely a matter of personal health.
Vegetarians are uncomfortable with how humans treat animals. Animals are cruelly butchered to meet the high demand and taste for meat in the market. Furthermore, meat-consumers argue that meat based foods are cheaper than plant based foods. According to Christians, man was given the power to dominate over all creatures in the world. Therefore, man has the right to use animals for food (Singer and Mason, 2007). However, it is unjustified for man to treat animals as he wishes because he has the power to rule over animals. This owes to the reality that it is unclear whether man has the right to slaughter animals (haphazardly), but it is clear that humans have a duty to take care of animals. In objection, killing animals is equal to killing fellow humans because both humans and animals have a right to life. Instead of brutally slaying animals, people should consume their products, which...
Although vegetarians come in many forms, they are often thought to hold to a few set positions. Unfortunately, as is often the case, ascribing all (or most) vegetarians to specific camps is improper. One suspected position claims that it is wrong (or immoral) to eat meat-an act that obviously requires the slaughtering of the animal in question. Though some vegetarians hold to this position, I do not. While it is problematic that people eat excessive amounts of meat, eating meat isn't immoral in my view. And while I don't think meat eaters are somehow wrong, I certainly can understand and respect the position that eating meat is immoral. A second stereotypic position holds that vegetarians despise meat eaters. While there are certainly vegetarians that have issues with meat eaters, I suspect they are no more than the number of meat eaters that find vegetarians objectionable for some reason or another. I believe there are many acceptable ways to think and act and, thus, I don't begrudge those that eat meat or those that choose to think that it is immoral to do so.
Gender seems to have a significant impact on the attitudes towards animal welfare. Despite the fact that the ethical nature of factory farming animals is a questionable topic, males seem to significantly consume more meat products than females. This is due to the fact that women have stronger negative attitudes toward animal experimentation, animal use and suffering (Eldridge & Gluck, 1996). Commonly, females express repulsion as well as negative attitudes towards consuming meat compared to men. Research have shown that this behavior among women is linked to post animal domestication (Phillips, 2009). In the past, women typically looked after animals at home in societies where animals are domesticated while men were involved in breadwinning
People have used the argument that eating meat plays an important role in the overall health of a human and it is the way the cycle of life is meant to be, but this is not the case. Eating meat is unnecessary. Becoming a vegetarian could save countless animals from unnecessary suffering, improve human health, and help preserve numerous natural resources.
In general, the public loves their meat. I mean look at our streets there are McDonalds, Burger Kings, and Wendy’s around almost every corner. When asked if they would go vegan most people would say no, I love to eat meat. To vegans this disgusts them and their reasoning is very convincing.
For several years the issue of eating meat has been a great concern to all types of people all over the world. In many different societies controversy has began to arise over the morality of eating meat from animals. A lot of the reasons for not eating meat have to deal with religious affiliations, personal health, animal rights, and concern about the environment. Vegetarians have a greater way of expressing meats negative effects on the human body whereas meat eaters have close to no evidence of meat eating being a positive effect on the human body. Being a vegetarian is more beneficial for human beings because of health reasons, environmental issues, and animal rights.
Every person has the ability to make their own choice of whether to eat meat or not. However, eating meat is directly tied to negative health effects, pollution leading to a depletion of ozone, and the depletion of hundreds of thousands of acres of land “wasted” on animal production when they could be used to solve the hunger crisis or lower emission levels. What humans eat is no longer a matter of choice; it has become a matter of life and death. Literally, the future of the whole planet rests on the decision of whether or not to eat meat. If humans chose to eat less meat the world that wouldn’t have to suffer the consequences (outlined above.) Vegetarianism is one possibility, as is Veganism; however the world would be
In relation to that, Melanie Joy, a notable social psychologist who drew attention to the term “carnism” in an article which she expressed that language is a liberating tool in shaping values and beliefs. She explained that the term “carnism” stems from the Latin – “carn”, meaning flesh or body. She stated that “fleshist” would be an appropriate word for people who consume meat to label themselves, but flesh possesses connotations suggestive of slaughter and this label may be too disconcerting, thus was removed from the socially-accepted carnivore for carnists to be willing to apply to themselves. For instance, slaughterhouse workers or laboratory technicians are subjected to refrain from naming the animals and refer them by their inanimate