Female Sexualisation and a Culture of Meat – what is the connection here?

The dehumanization of women, reduced to mere objects subjected to groping, harassment, and catcalling, persists in our society, perpetuating a culture that values women primarily for their appearance. I would know, I work in an industry which (not solely, but primarily) exists off the basis of one's appearance - especially women!

In this landscape where women are routinely portrayed and assessed as objects, the question arises: who truly bears responsibility when real-life women are treated as commodities? And how can we combat this pervasive objectification - and who is to blame? the women for being sexy? the men for being the consumers/perpetrators?

You might be thinking...yes Amy ok we live in a sexualised/patriarchal society, get over it. And what does meat have to do with it now??

Years ago I read “The Sexual Politics of Meat” – one of my favourite books of Carol J. Adams, and lately, I have been thinking alot about sexuality – and the correlation between men, women and animals. Let me explain…

Advertising in Western culture often employs images of sexualized women depicted alongside meat or as animals. Scholars, including philosophers and feminists, have extensively analyzed such imagery - for example the Carls Junior ads, suggesting that it symbolizes the subordinate status of both women and animals compared to men in society.

They argue that the prejudices towards women (sexism) and animals (speciesism) are intertwined, with meat consumption, serving as a central symbol of masculinity.

Drawing upon ecofeminist theory, we examine the psychological evidence regarding the connections between sexism, speciesism, meat consumption, and masculinity.

Studies on the dehumanization of women through animalistic representations provide insights into the intertwined nature of sexism and speciesism, rooted in aspirations for group-based dominance and inequality.

Additionally, research on the symbolic significance of meat reinforces its association with masculine traits such as dominance and power. It suggests that men who reject meat consumption (e.g., vegans) are often perceived as feminized and devalued, especially by individuals with higher levels of sexism.

Let's Talk about Sexuality

To me, sexuality is not inherently degrading, but we have tend to see it as degrading for women. A woman having a lot of sex, wearing sexy clothes, or otherwise being actively sexy should not diminish her in anyone's eyes. It shouldn't reduce her to a sexual object - she's capable of being a sexual subject.

To me, it is interesting to consider shifting the conversation from "stop allowing yourself to be objectified by being sexy" to "stop objectifying her just because she is sexy."

It reflects a culture that can't envision female sexual agency, that thinks women should be chaste and not participate in their own sexual lives. Expressing healthy sexuality shouldn't dehumanize you, and our society does still tend to see sexual women as somehow degraded or less worthy of respect, reduced to their 'parts' - in the same way we reduce animals to their 'parts'.

Let’s clarify upfront: objectification should not be confused with appreciating someone’s appearance. It's natural to notice and admire aesthetics to some extent, without any stigma attached. However, objectification begins as a mental process, with the individual perceiving someone as an object rather than recognizing their full humanity.

Some argue that women, particularly their appearance or clothing choices, are to blame for being objectified. The notion suggests that provocative attire invites objectification.

However, this philosophy is deeply flawed for several reasons:

• It shifts blame onto the individual being perceived rather than the beholder, fostering a victim-blaming mentality.
• Regardless of attire, individuals cannot shield themselves entirely from objectification. Objectification occurs irrespective of clothing choices, as even the most modest attire can elicit objectifying perceptions.
• Notions of appropriateness vary widely among individuals and cultures, rendering the concept subjective and unreliable.
• Objectification persists across various contexts and attire, undermining the argument that clothing directly determines perception.

Objectification, manifested in behaviors like catcalling and sexual abuse, transcends clothing choices, affecting individuals regardless of attire. The prevalence of objectification underscores its root in power dynamics, where individuals exert dominance over others by degrading them or treating them as sexual objects.

The normalization of this dehumanization teaches men and boys to perceive females primarily as objects of desire, perpetuating a cycle of devaluation and objectification. However, we must recognize that objectification stems from shared cultural influences, particularly media portrayal.

Media, through its pervasive objectification of women, normalizes and perpetuates this harmful mindset. From movies to advertising to pornography, sexualized portrayals of women inundate our visual landscape, reinforcing the notion of female bodies as commodities. The porn industry, in particular, capitalizes on this objectification, contributing significantly to the devaluation of women. To clarify, I am not against women who work in the porn industry – my issue is the industry.

The evidence of objectification in action (catcalling, sexual abuse and assault, etc.) is not determined or dissuaded by the clothing the objectified person (victim) is wearing.?Girls and women across the world are raped and assaulted and hollered at while wearing flannel pajamas and cold-weather running gear and clubbing dresses and everything in between. Even in cultures where women are required to or choose to cover up a great deal, there is still an incredibly high incidence of rape and sexual violence. And in some cultures where clothing is optional (ex: some?African tribes), rape and sexual violence are reportedly very low. I am very regularly catcalled (in explicit, anger-inducing ways) while wearing a long shirt and jeans or a skirt below the knee in India.?

Why? Not because of my sexy clothes, I can assure you. See?this link?for a bunch of examples to dispel the myth that scantily-clad women are more likely to be catcalled or assaulted. Harassment, sexual abuse, and assault are often about power, and men assert their power over women by publicly degrading?them and/or abusing them as sexual objects for their own gratification.?

You could never be clothed perfectly enough to ensure everyone perceives you the way you intend to be perceived.?You could never obscure your shape or essence or beauty enough to prevent someone from having sexual thoughts about you and blaming you for those thoughts.?That is because objectification happens in the eye and mind of the beholder.?You are the only one who can control whether you objectify another person.?As mentioned before, we need to shift the conversation from "stop allowing yourself to be objectified by being sexy" to "stop objectifying her just because she is sexy".

Taking responsibility

We must take responsibility for ourselves – our own thoughts, our own intentions, and our own actions. [Please note: I am referring to face-to-face or?person-to-person judgments and perceptions, not perceptions of media. Obviously, media purposefully and blatantly presents women as objects. I myself have worked on projects where I am merely an ‘object of desire’ and the thoughts around this have led me to make some discerning questions around what we allow into our visual diets and re-train the minds to see people instead of objects in both media and face to face.]

Ok...but what does meat have to do with this?

This culture of objectification permeates society, leading individuals to view women as mere objects of desire and men to perceive animals as nothing more than slabs of meat. Just as women are often reduced to their sexual appeal, men largely around the world, dehumanize animals, treating them solely as consumable commodities.

When we look at it, animal farming is inherently misogynistic. The meat, dairy, and egg industries exist to profit off female reproductive systems. Starting at around 12 months of age,?cows living at dairy factory farms are forcibly impregnated?through artificial insemination—and then they’re impregnated again only?two to three months?after giving birth. This cycle continues until their production begins to wane, at which point the cows are sent to slaughter. Although their natural lifespan can be up to 20 years, cows raised at dairy factory farms become so exhausted that they’re often?killed at only four or five years of age.

Since consuming meat is associated with qualities traditionally considered masculine, plant-based foods are often perceived as more feminine. Consequently, rejecting meat can be seen as embracing femininity, which, through a patriarchal lens, is deemed inferior. This association between meat and masculinity explains why men tend to consume more meat than women, reflecting deeper cultural biases beyond dietary preferences.

Patriarchal masculinity, being fragile and averse to femininity, opposes the ethic of care inherent in vegetarian or vegan diets, which align with traditionally feminine traits like empathy and compassion. This resistance to plant-based diets further underscores the societal pressure on men to conform to hyper-masculine norms.

Meanwhile, the media has played a significant role in reinforcing the idea of meat as inherently masculine. However, there's a shifting narrative. We can see a growing trend towards plant-based products across the world, particularly among younger demographics and women. Media outlets are raising awareness about the environmental impacts of the meat industry, while documentaries like Game Changers challenge the notion that meat equals masculinity, featuring athletes like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Companies like Beyond Meat are also reshaping perceptions by showcasing plant-based professional athletes of both genders as brand ambassadors, promoting a gender-neutral view of plant-based eating.

The cultural association between meat consumption and distorted notions of masculinity reflects the influence of patriarchal systems.

It's crucial to understand that a woman choosing to dress provocatively is not equivalent to being used for pornography. The former may be an expression of personal empowerment and agency, while the latter often involves exploitation and objectification.

Ultimately, combatting objectification demands collective effort and conscious awareness. By challenging societal norms that promote objectification and striving for a culture that values individuals for their humanity rather than reducing them to mere objects of desire, we can create a society where everyone is seen and valued for their inherent worth. On a similar pane, beyond individual taste, societal beliefs, traditions, and marketing shape our food choices.

Challenging patriarchal masculinity itself can shift these perceptions, fostering a more compassionate and inclusive approach to food and gender roles.

Reconsidering traditional ideals of masculinity and femininity can lead to healthier and more ethical food choices for all. Let's cultivate a society that transcends superficial perceptions and embraces the richness and complexity of the human experience. Acknowledging the interconnectedness of patriarchal gender dynamics and practices related to animal exploitation, including meat consumption, can contribute to efforts aimed at enhancing the status of both women and animals.

?