‘The Sexual Politics of Meat’ turns 35: An interview with book author Carol J. Adams

Over the 35 years since its publication, the provocative book 'The Sexual Politics of Meat' has helped to create an intellectual climate for discussing the connections between oppression of humans and the other animals. Back in the early 1990s it was viewed suspiciously by some feminists for reinforcing gender stereotypes, rather than an analysis of a culture teeming with gender stereotypes that spilled over and informed attitudes toward the Earth and animals. Still today, many feminists and progressives respond to this message by saying, 'We have to solve human problems first before we consider animals'. What if how we view and treat animals influences how we treat humans?

JILL FILIPOVIC: The provocative book ‘The Sexual Politics of Meat’ turns 35. Below is a Q&A conducted with the author, influential vegan feminist Carol J. Adams:…

Q: The Sexual Politics of Meat is quite provocative. What was the response when it came out? How did feminists respond to it? How did non-feminists?

A: A few feminist booksellers told me animal rights activists bought the book in hardcover but heard feminists saying they were going to wait for the paperback. (I think I can understand that— animal rights theory in 1990s was like feminist theory in the early 1970s—each new book introduced wildly exciting ideas, and you didn’t want to wait to read them.)

When I applied the concept of the absent referent to the status of animals and women and explained its function in creating overlapping or interwoven connections, I offered a new theoretical vocabulary. Throughout the 1980s, the majority of books addressing the status of animals were philosophical in approach and focused solely on non-human animals. But, The Sexual Politics of Meat offered a different framework, arguing we could not understand the status of animals, especially those who are consumed by humans, without looking at the patriarchal culture in which this exploitation occurred. Graduate students wrote to say it liberated them to claim the topics they wanted to write about for their doctoral theses.

I found one comment, laughingly ironic. A feminist English professor told another she didn’t want to read the book because she might have to become a vegetarian. When I heard this, I thought, “But isn’t that why we read feminist theory?” Ms. Magazine seemed to agree in their mention of it. “Read this powerful new book and you may well become a vegetarian.”

It was briefly stopped at the Canadian border for having a supposed pornographic cover.

Completely unexpected was the amount of mail I received. Readers began to send me examples they found of the sexual politics of meat, like photographs of billboards and menus. Animal rights activists who monitored animal agriculture publications sent me advertisements found there, saying “It is so good to have someone to send this to who gets it.” It’s one reason I say that my readers showed me my work wasn’t done. I’d look at these images and think “yuck” and then “oh”—from repulsion to insight; look what they are saying about animals and women here!..

Q: You write about patriarchal attitudes toward women, and how those play out in the attitudes toward and treatment of animals. Can you expand a bit on that?…

A: The Sexual Politics of Meat identifies the patriarchal context for the Western world’s commitment to meat eating, and dairy and egg consumption. It proposes that women’s oppression and animals’ exploitation are overlapping and interconnected.

Some of its main themes include:

* The association of meat eating and masculinity: entire cultures were deemed “virile” because of the large amount of animal flesh consumed. This is tied to racist colonial attitudes, too. I argue that “Racism is perpetuated each time meat is thought to be the best protein source.” I suggest that meat eating functions as a marker that legitimates the gender binary system and the gender binary system uses the sexual politics of meat to define who men should be: “real men,” not “sissies,” not “effeminate.” Men are expected to keep participating in the construction of manhood by eating animals. Otherwise, they face being abjected and feminized…

* It offers a feminist analysis of the politics of language and shows how a dominant culture mutes the radical analysis that challenges it, whether feminist or vegetarian/vegan.

* It proposes the term feminized protein to name precisely the exploitation of the reproductive processes of female animals in the production of mammalian milk and eggs. I wanted a term that, I hoped, would unsettle the sexual commodification of female animals…

Q: In the 35 ensuing years, what has changed in terms of the cultural conversation around feminism, vegetarianism/veganism, and the intersection of the two? What about the book still feels resonant? Are there parts that you feel we’ve made progress on?..

A: Yes, there is some progress: the word “vegan” is more widely known. Progress, too, in the embrace of the flavors of vegetables, found in restaurants like Dirt Candy, Vedge, and Plant, and interest in vegan meals by mainstream chefs. Major newspapers feature vegan recipes. Certainly, there are more articles about the link between masculinity and meat eating, but often the discussion contains an air of mystification, a mainstream media that says, “gosh, what could be going on here?”…

In our culture, today, the patriarchal cultural commitment to consuming animals and feminized protein remains dominant. Not only our loss of the protection of the right to abortion but the alignment of Christian nationalism with Trump strengthens patriarchal attempts to control women. It seems women have become more of an absent referent now then when the book was published. And so, I keep updating the book and my publisher remains committed to bringing out new editions…

Q: Do you think the response to the book would be different today?

A: Yes and no. Yes, terms that were unfamiliar as I finished the book in 1989 like “intersectional” or “vegan” are now more familiar. In addition, ecofeminism is more widely accepted now as an activist and academic approach. Back in the early 1990s it was viewed suspiciously by some feminists as being “essentialist,” that is, that we reinforced gender stereotypes. It was a case of the analysis being mistaken for what we were analyzing—a culture teeming with gender stereotypes that spilled over and informed attitudes toward the Earth and animals.

The book itself influences how we receive it now by having helped to create the intellectual climate for discussing the connections between oppression of humans and the other animals. Still, many feminists and progressives respond to my approach saying, “We have to solve human problems first before we consider animals.” What if how we view and treat animals influences how we treat humans?… Whatever progress has occurred, there’s a sense that factory farms are here to stay. Indeed, an intense reaction against my ideas persists that, ironically, often proves my argument. SOURCE…

RELATED VIDEO: