Feminism purports to concern itself only with equality – but in reality propagates mistrust, tension and hatred between the sexes.
January 28, 2008 in exposing feminism
This time, ‘The Patriarchy’ is supressing women by forcing them to eat meat..
Comments feed for this article
January 29, 2008 at 2:28 am
Oh my word.
A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory.
Who publishes these things?
What’s next? A complete guide for East Anglian crab fishing for Chinese speakers living in Brazil?
I would be interested if someone writes to the publisher and asks them how many they have printed and how many they expect to sell.
University Libraries often just buy everything just in case, but will any actual consumers buy this?
January 29, 2008 at 5:14 pm
What about iron and other minerals? Before modern science how did women replenish the nutrients lost in menstruation?
afaik humans are omnivorous, not herbivores
January 31, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Vegetarians are stupid.
They are not getting the necessary 20+ amino acids required for the human body. Plants are a poor source, which are not readily biologically available.
Its been proven over and over that these people are slowly dying with this diet.
Eggs and fish are the best sources of amino acids.
Ah let em die.
February 1, 2008 at 1:50 pm
er, yeah, that is just stupid. If people want to be vegans, go for it. But eating meat is NOT oppressive for fucksakes.
“If god didn’t want us to eat animals, he wouldn’t have made them out of meat”- Ted Nuggent.
February 20, 2008 at 9:45 pm
The book’s not about the physical consumption of meat. It’s not a call to vegetarianism. Nor does it say, anywhere, in any form, that meat-eating is “oppressive.” It’s a theoretical piece about the connections between meat-as-in-food and meat-as-in-flesh, about drawing out parallels between certain aspects of our culture’s treatment of animals (meat) and certain aspects of our culture’s treatment of women (meat).
Just to be clear, I don’t even agree with the piece, but I can disagree with it while understanding what it is — and what it isn’t.
With all due respect, I think you need to work on your interpretive abilities.
February 20, 2008 at 10:18 pm
And with likewise respect, is it not true that the act of creating a link to the objectification of women and the (perceived) sexualisation of meat product marketing is in itself intimating that men are responsible for both practises?
Does it not also follow that the author is suggesting that women are being compelled to accept these practises if they are to continue support of the meat industry?
I agree that the whole thing is a somewhat blurred concept, but this looks like yet another feminist exercise in creating division, however tenuous!
February 22, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Okay, and what about our culture’s treatment of men as meat: cannon fodder and disposable workers?
In N America we treat animal meat like any other commodity: mass-produced and marketed. Our affluence keeps extending the limits of ‘acceptable’ consumption.
Materialism ultimately means that we treat everyone like objects doesn’t it?
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.Ben Eastaugh and Chris Sternal-Johnson.
Subscribe to feed.