The imagine depicts a faceless humanoid that I believe is supposed to be male, carving into what appears to be a hunk of cooked pork. In short I believe this image was presented to us, because it is supposed to reflect upon our reading assignments of this week. Which to my understanding were arguments about how meat eating is associated with masculinity as well as how the poor treatment of farmed animals for food and in general any animal in a cage can be associated with the oppression of said animal and humans alike. This week we read three materials tittle Meat Heads: New study focuses on how meat consumption alters men’s self-perceived levels of masculinity, Ecofeminism on the Wing: Perspectives on Human Animal Relations, and Contextual Moral Vegetarianism.
Meat Heads is a Huffington post article written by Zoe Eisenberg, who starts off by talking about how steak and salad are stereotyped with men and women respectively which are examples of gendered foods because of the general association they have. She then states, “This visual paints the picture that plant food is for ladies, and perhaps cows, but men? Not so much. For many men, meat is an inarguable symbol of masculinity. We’ve been fed this idea for decades. If you are what you (m)eat, and you’re a man, then you eat meat.” Which makes me feel that the author is biased towards men, because her phrasing makes it sound as if eating plant matter is a negative connotation, being associated with cows, which seems unrelated at all to the topic material except to make the statement feel negative towards women, because being associated with a cow is generally an insult. The latter part of her statement about men makes it sound like meat is associated with masculinity, but that masculinity is a bad thing. To tangent that previous statement Zoe Eisenberg’s fourth paragraph talks about how in a study it found meat is better at lowering a man’s anxiety after feeling threatened as compared to a non-meat option. Zoe Eisenberg then states that the study concluded off this that this is due to the “masculinity-symbolizing power of meat. Or, in layman’s terms: eat a steak, feel more like a man.” I feel this conclusion can be argued, because it could also be a physiological factor. Perhaps it is the high protein content in meat that lowers the man’s anxiety, which meats are also associated with increasing a man’s testosterone level which would make sense that eating meat can help lower anxiety, because it will help boost testosterone which is associated with boosting serotonin productions or happy chemicals. I feel overall the author is making it sound as if eating meat is the bad thing and not the fact that not eating meat can make you feel less than a man to some men. She later argues how a big trend going around is meat free diets and how many men are doing it and say they do not feel less of a man. One lifelong vegan saying, Howell says he has never felt his manhood was under siege when others learn he eats no meat—other than the typical scrutinization he gets for being vegan in general.” Which makes me feel the focus should not be on men, but people who scrutinize veganism. Perhaps that is men, but it also feels like the author is doing to men what she is asking not to be done to her. She sounds as if she is ostracizing masculinity and men who feel they have to eat meat to feel like a man, when in truth there is nothing wrong with being of masculine traits. Overall, I do agree veganism is a healthy option, and it is definitely more environmentally friendly, because it save way more land than a meat eating society. Animal farming is a lot more energy than plant farming, because not only do you need so much land for the cattle, but you also need land to grow food on for the animals as well. I would also state that is ok to eat meat, maybe cutting down meat consumption could be a middle ground. In the other two readings, I do believe they make some valid points on animal care and veganism, but also go a bit extreme.
In the paper, Perspectives on Human Animal Relations written by Greta Gaard, She makes a great point about treatment of pets and how poor it can be. The care for poor Bella should be better, and I think how a lot of people care for their pets can be a good argument for having them at all. I will also agree Zoos and Aquariums can be argued over its existence, because some animals are meant to never be kept in a cage. I feel Greta has a lot of sympathy for Bella and she even relates this animal oppression to helping support the oppression of certain races, women, and peoples of differing sexual orientation. I feel like her argument to not allow animals to be kept or that they are enslaved is a bit raunchy. I feel like it is not about the keeping of the animals, but about the respect. There are so many animals that can be pets, or working animals, or even farm animals. I feel like the issue is respect and understanding. Which is an argument made in Contextual Moral Vegetarianism by Deane Curtin, when he talks about people that respect the animals they eat and keep. I believe it is the responsibility of the people when getting a pet to do their research. For instance, some animals when you research will really make you realize it should not be a pet, but a cat or a dog, truly can be happy in your home. I think what to be weary of there is overbreeding. I would take any mutt over a purebred any day. Also, I do work with exotic birds, and I do agree they do not deserve to be locked up, they are smart, noisy, and live longer than you if you get a large bird like a macaw. A parakeet can be a pet, as can a reptile, and it should be the responsibility of the owner to give it the best living conditions possible, and if it can not be provided, then you should not have the pet.
Overall I found the reading interesting and a bit extreme, I will say being educated and aware of where your food comes from would be a big step. That if you can not or really do not want to be vegan or vegetarian, that is ok. That even if that is a more environmentally movement, it does not mean it is right in every sense of the word. In truth, farm animals that are not massed murdered, but respectively kept and cared for I would say is morally acceptable too. I think we do need to step back into nature and reawake to the equality we all should recognize. I would not say you have to stop eating meat, but maybe stop capitalization on it. Maybe go to a farmers market, take your kids to a farm and show them where there food comes from. Maybe try to support the places that you feel can fit in your moral compass.
Test