The Woman-Nature Association: Objectification and Consumption

Part 1:

Image 1:

https://caroljadams.com/examples-of-spom/

Image 2:

https://caroljadams.com/examples-of-spom/

Image 3:

https://caroljadams.com/examples-of-spom/

 

According to Adams, anthropornography is the presentation of animals “as sexually consumable, in a way that upholds the sexual exploitation of women” (14). The above images, from Adams’ slideshow, The Sexual Politics of Meat, compare women to meat and devalue women’s/animal’s lives in an appeal to the male gaze. Each image compares women/meat/animals as passive “things” to which men are entitled. The first image shows a pilgrim man (a, perhaps, unintended reminder America was founded on white, male oppression of Indigenous cultures and women) with a turkey and text, comparing women and turkeys (or any animal used for its meat) as submissive objects meant for male enjoyment, as the textual wish states, “lying on their back ready to be eaten.” Adams proclaims, posing or depicting women/animals as men’s property “sexually available as though their only desire is for the viewer to want their bodies” is the type of white male appropriation of women and animals bodies/identity, present in my chosen images, which denies the subjects’ autonomy (sexualizing their degradation) and reinforces male entitlement (15). Adams claims, “generally, privilege grants pleasure,” thus, when men (the consumers of media/animals/women) see these image, and it is appealing to them, it is due to their privilege and power over women and animals (who are consumed) (15). Through this picture, we learn the objectification/sexualization of women/animals suggests the two groups are of lower status/lesser value in patriarchal society. Kemmerer writes, “advertisements contain all that we imagine to be good and powerful on the side of white males, juxtaposed against all that we hold in low esteem.” The white male, supposedly the most valuable, is considered “human,” and women/animals (devalued groups) are his property, as suggested by the terminology, “your women and turkey.” This offensive representation of an appropriated holiday emphasizes American male consumption, at the expense of women and animals, alike.

In the second image, a woman’s body is labeled like cuts of meat from an animal, and a description (in Spanish) states, “Patriarchy and speciesism. Women and other animals are bodies to consume.” She is posed in a reclining nude display “designed to please its male viewers” (Gottesman). At once, the woman depicted is objectified, and fragmented (a concept I referred to in my last blog post) with lines drawn across her body to accentuate aspects of female anatomy for the male gaze, rather than observing her whole body, or personality. These lines assist in portraying the woman as meat a butcher would carve. As Adams states, “the essence of butchering is to fragment the animal into pieces small enough for consumption” (23). Thus, in this picture, the woman takes the place of the animal; she is now the product consumed. This image not only objectifies the woman; it also sexualizes the animal whose place she takes. “Replacing animals with women is therefore not substitution or potentially liberating, because the original victim’s fate is still there, present through reference” (Adams 20). Audiences inherently recognize the death/butchering of the animal, a reality the picture puts in the context of women. Both parties (women/animal) are debased/oppressed; and the description clarifies the advertisement’s intended audience. This presentation of female/animal bodies, instead of unique identities, is designed to “serve” them both to men (the consumers).

The third picture takes the patriarchal idea of serving women to men (as is done with animals) one step further; in this image, a woman is naked (her back to the camera) and wrapped in a bow, suggesting her body is being offered as a gift. A French caption accompanies the image, translating to approximately, “have you already chosen your meat?” The post appeared on Christmas Eve, which adds context, implying a woman’s body is (like an animal made into a meat dish) something to be served or offered. But this image suggests someone beyond the woman, herself, could be providing the offer. Adams notes, “animals can’t represent their own need to be liberated from human domination” (20). This image, like butchering animals, implies women lack agency, and, as with the previous examples, their bodies (human/animal) exist for men’s consumption and pleasure. All three images, and certainly many more, employ the woman-animal connection, and teach us how prevalent their objectification/sexualization/consumption are in a patriarchal, human-controlled world, where men are consumers of women’s bodies, and human consumption of animals reinforces such entitlement: after all, if diverse people partake in the harm of others, we condone oppression, and further harm ourselves.

Part 2:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/153474299774453025/

While many of the examples Adams included in the interview appeared in my search, one advertisement exemplifying the objectification/sexualization of women/animals came from McDonald’s. In the attached image, a Big Mac appears on a bed of red, satin sheets. This image is suggestive of women’s social position as sexual beings, available for the purpose of men’s pleasure. Despite neither a woman, nor a live animal appearing in the advertisement, both are inevitably degraded. Adams2 claims, “animalizing women and feminizing animals helps in [the consumer] process because it renders women and dead animals used as flesh as commodities” (15). The primary expression, “stop staring at me like I’m some piece of meat,” is a phrase women have used when objectified by the male gaze. Adams states, “violence has been made into sex. Meat advertisements do this to animals because pornographers do it to women;’ they do it ‘because it works for them sexually” (15). And the “irony” of using the comparative phrase “stop staring…” in a sexualized advertisement for processed meat invalidates the phrase (as it is now untrue) and has the same effect in trivializing women’s experience with sexual harassment and objectification. By doing this, the ad acknowledges and accepts the use of women/animal’s as the “commodities” Adams describes because they can profit (Adams2 15). But, describing meat as a “piece of meat,” (in a sexualized context) and making light of it, ignores where that meat came from (animals). In The Pornography of Meat, Kemmerer writes, “viewing some individuals as consumable is so central to Western culture that most of us fail to notice it.” In the context of the advertisement, women’s/animals’ consumption/objectification has become so prevalent in American culture that it is used as a joke in further marketing. Instead of being acknowledged as a harmful problem, it is again used to degrade women/animals and make light of the harm they experience. This exemplifies what Adams calls, the “absent referent;” “what appears superficially as substitution is actually the layering of one oppressive system on top of another” (Adams2 20). The ad “substitutes” a burger (formerly animal; oppressed by humanity for food) in place of where an attractive woman (oppressed by men for her sexuality) would be, applying the idea of her attractiveness to the burger, therefore, in the eyes of the viewer, the two are the same: appealing, passive things to be consumed, rather than (present or formerly) living beings who can feel, and who are harmed by these degrading situations. Ignorance regarding cultural diversity—which allows humans to ignore animal feeling, and men to ignore women’s experience—appears multiple times in the brief advertisement.  The closing statement of the ad identifies the target audience: men, as written, “Are you Mac (i.e., ‘man’) enough?” Including this phrase implies only “real” men eat meat, and further, only they can truly dominate women. Heavily present in media, women’s comparison to animals/meat consistently de-“personalizes,” them, devaluing their presence, and reinforcing the false assumption that they exist for men.

Works Cited

Adams₁, Carol J. “The Pornography of Meat.” Continuum International Publishing, London, 1990, p. 27. University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 3 March 2025.

Carol J. Adams₂, interview by Annie Potts. “The Politics of Carol J. Adams.” Antennae, Autumn 2010, pp. 12-24. University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 3 March 2025.

Gottesman, Sarah. “6 Art-Historical Poses You Should Know.” Artsy, 1 January 2018. https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-6-art-historical-poses. Accessed 4 March 2025.

Kemmerer, Lisa. “The Pornography of Meat by Carol Adams.” Philosophy Now, 2006.  https://philosophynow.org/issues/56/The_Pornography_of_Meat_by_Carol_Adams. Accessed 3 March 2025.