Women-Nature Association

I chose these three images from Carol Adam’s “Sexual Politics of Meat” examples. The “Hey Babe / Fresh Chicken” image immediately recalled in my mind Adam’s comments on non-human animals as whores. The chicken’s proportions are not nearly as humanized as some of the other illustrations, but the way it’s posing with its “hand” on its hip and the one bent leg and head turned to the side is sexualized in a way that is very much directed towards men. I remember in highschool some girls were having a conversation on the proper way to pose for pictures or when you see a cute boy so that your body looks its best. You apparently weren’t “supposed to” directly face the camera/boy, but be at a slight angle, bend a leg to angle your hips more, turn your face to the side so they see more of your jaw line, put your hand on your hip to accentuate the curve, et cetera. By the end of it you might as well have tied yourself into a knot, how can that be comfortable? (I assume comfort isn’t the point. . .) And the phrase “hey babe.” It’s casual, it’s flirty, it’s something you might say to a love interest. This chicken has been illustrated for the consumer to lust for it, not just craving the meat, but a sexual lust and attraction because of the similarities between that chicken and women.

The second image of “meat makes men sexy” is something I’ve never understood. There has always been something dominant, masculine, strong, alluring, whatever that advertisements and our society attribute to meat-eaters. Even when girls eat burgers it’s like the men are more attracted to her because she’s somehow more powerful or confident for eating meat. It’s not just “meat makes men sexy,” it’s “meat makes people sexy.” All people, everyone everywhere. That’s the message being sent, that’s the message being echoed. Adam’s references Catherine MacKinnon saying inequality is made sexy and tasty. It’s seen here as well as anywhere else. The consuming of meat is the same as the consuming of women. A man eating meat is often viewed as equal to a man having a hookup or a one-night stand — consuming the woman and leaving, dinner.

The last image I chose just kind of shocked me in a different way. Most of the images in Adam’s pool of examples are of signs or advertisements, but this one appears to be writing on the back of a woman’s shirt — why would a woman (or anyone) want / choose to wear this shirt? It reads “women are like calves only takes two fingers to make them suck.” Eeesh. There’s an obvious woman-nature association here between cows and women. If my extended family weren’t farmers I would not get this “joke.” For those of you who are unfamiliar, one way to teach calves to drink (“suck”) is to put two fingers in their mouth and stick their head into a bucket of milk and when you spread your fingers and let the milk get into their mouth, they start to learn how to drink. Seems like an innocent thing, to teach a young animal to eat and drink. . . The quote on the shirt sexualizes the calves and animalizes the women.

I chose this Burger King ad to analyze in addition to Adam’s examples. There is a pretty blonde woman with eyeliner, blush, red lipstick and her mouth open waiting for the “BK Super Seven Incher.” Everything about this is sexualized. The woman has been made up and posed a very specific way. The sandwich is coming towards her from outside of the frame, and we can’t see the other end. A sandwich on its own typically isn’t considered to be a relatively phallic food, but in this case the sandwich’s sexual nature could compete with a cucumber. Even the name “super seven incher” feels sexualized. And how have I not commented on the slogan yet?! “It’ll blow your mind away.” Gross. It may be a woman about to eat the sandwich in the advertisement but this is definitely not targeted towards women. Like Adam’s talked about in the interview, most advertisements are made for white men — this fits the bill. Everything about this ad is oppressive from the imagery to the copy language.