During a speech delivered at the 2000 World Vegetarian Congress in Toronto, Carol J. Adams remarked that there should be a word for the sexually explicit ways humans contort animals to sell and consume. Immediately, her friend Amie Hamlin called out, “anthropornography.” Adams would later describe anthropornography in an interview with Annie Potts for Antennae magazine, saying it means “animals are presented as sexually consumable, in a way that upholds the sexual exploitation of women.” Hamlin’s label captured the essence of a complex set of issues, all of which can be traced back to the human exploitation of animals for consumption and capitalism. The human drive to hunt and herd, once a means of survival, has morphed into a conquest of speciesism. Looking closer, the male subjugation of women is mirrored in the human subjugation of animals. “Women are animalized and animals are sexualized and feminized,” says Adams in her interview for Antennae. Let’s take a look at some of the visual examples Adams provides in her signature slideshow, Sexual Politics of Meat.
The image above depicts a limited-edition KFC sandwich, which famously swapped bread for fried chicken. I remember when this sandwich was released. The marketing clearly depicted lumberjack-style men with fistfuls of meat, flashes of red, black, and white, and a thick block font reminiscent of Uncle Sam posters during wartime. As seen above, the ads would describe the item as “the world’s manliest sandwich,” giving the impression that manly men would enjoy it. Or perhaps it would make a man manlier? That particular interpretation is up to the viewer, apparently. One thing is clear: the messaging conveys that is good to be masculine, it’s worth being proud of, and one should seek to increase his manliness through manly acts, like eating a sandwich comprised almost entirely of fried chicken.
The next image is a marquee outside of a strip club, stating they employ “free range grass fed strippers.” This marketing takes real verbiage from ads for animal products, like eggs and chicken, and applies it to a subset of women. There is no subtlety to this language; it clearly assigns a consumable label to the female employees. It lends the impression that the women are housed in a barn, let out to graze, and exist to provide a consumable service to humans. That’s another thing about this type of marketing: it always puts the subject in a feminine category. We didn’t need to know this marquee referred to female strippers; it was implied by the oppressive imagery. “In meat eating, all animals become symbolically female,” Adams says, and as the images in her slideshow tick on, we see more overlap between the sexualization of animals and the oppression of women.
The last image is probably the most shocking, and literal. It takes a raw piece of meat, still hanging on a butcher hook, dressed in a tube top and mini skirt. Text at the bottom states “It’s not acceptable to treat a woman like one. Most men agree, but few speak out. Please, be heard. A man’s voice is an effective way to change demeaning societal attitudes towards women.” Upon first glance, one might think this is a reasonable plea to treat women respectfully. Zooming in, we can see that it upholds an unfortunate hierarchical attitude that humans have projected onto animals: they are inferior, and thus worthy of poorer treatment. The image acknowledges that to be a “piece of meat” is a negative, unwanted thing, and it pleads for men not to treat women like animals. It is, at its core, “propaganda for speciesism,” as Carol J. Adams has said. The underlying message is that humans deserve better treatment than animals, and it’s up to men to save us all.
This last image is one that I found on my own. It’s a vintage Campbell’s Soup advertisement for their beef soup. The language in the add is masculine — “BEEF is Big News,” “deep-flavored,” “hefty pieces,” “thick” — and the tagline is even more oppressive: “FOR MEN ONLY.” The tagline is on a cartoon sign surrounded by cartoon women, looking shocked and impressed at the beefy soup. The subheading reads, “‘He-Man’ is the word for these Hearty Soups! But, Ladies, you’ll like ’em, too!” The overall message here is that this beefy, meaty product is for men, and it impresses women with how masculine it is. Plus, a bonus: women may try the soup with permission from male advertising executives.
Each of these images has one central theme: men, above all, exist to consume and annihilate. Women, despite being part of the same species, are oppressed and subjugated to a similar degree as nonhuman animals. Still, women subjugate and oppress nonhuman animals by participating in the consumption of meat themselves, despite being treated and viewed as sexual objects. Are most women aware of this hypocrisy? “A cycle of objectification, fragmentation, and consumption links butchering and sexual violence in our culture,” writes Adams. Men objectify women on stage, in magazines, through media, they fragment them in conversation (“I’m more of a butt man, myself”), and some consume them through acts of sexual violence. The butcher, in his white shift, raises animals on hooks and completes the same process, ending in consumption in the name of agriculture. And we are too disconnected from our compassion, as Adams would say, to recognize the destructive parallels.
Works Cited:
Adams, Carol J. (2010) The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. London and New York: Continuum.
Aloi, G., Arends, B., Shrumm, R., & Brink, E. E. (2009) Antennae: The Journal of Nature in Visual Culture. Issue 14. pp. 12-24
Hi Jessica,
Thank you for sharing.
I agree; the images in Adams’ slideshow raise awareness that women are “consumed” in media, while men are the “consumers.” This, sadly, remains relevant. As you acknowledged with the KFC ad, “messaging conveys that it is good to be masculine” (Wright). Adams writes, “people don’t want to give up their privilege,” because it keeps their lives comfortable; and this is true with men (21). And, you have also recognized women partake in the consumption (and, thereby, harm) of animals, too. To answer your question, “are most women aware of this hypocrisy?”, I believe that depends on if they make the connection between women’s/animal’s oppression. In reality, “sexual violence knows no boundaries,” and the consumption of animals is similar (Gillis & Jacobs 272). Everyone, male/female, is capable of inflicting harm (on other humans, and animals). But, when most women consume meat, the sexism and pain behind it is, likely, not even considered. As Adams writes, the depiction of women’s/animal’s degradation “have become so much a part of our culture that we fail to notice.” You also mentioned “men objectify women” in many instances (media, real life). As 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, I would agree; a lack of compassion keeps our world reliant on methods which inevitably cause harm. If we would all listen to each other, and encourage respect, we would see less of this pain.
As you note with the advertisement by an anti-domestic violence group which depicts meat in a tube top and skirt, degrading animals by suggesting humans (and women) are of higher status misses the point: we shouldn’t be inflicting careless harm on any beings. And despite the advertisement’s attempt to prove a point, “replacing animals with women is [not a solution] because the original victim’s fate is still there, present through reference” (Adams 20). I also have mixed feelings about the statement in small print, “A man’s voice is an effective way to change demeaning societal attitudes towards women.” While I understand the intent (for men to speak out about important issues in women’s lives—to be allies), “animals can’t represent their own need[s]” or perspectives in the same way humans (women) can (Adams 20). Therefore, we should all advocate for animals’ well-being; when it comes to women, however, I think men should certainly support women, but they should let women to use their own voices and share their experience, while encouraging other men to truly listen, rather than speaking for them. If another man is the only thing which will make one man listen, I encourage it. But I also value individual experience, so women (especially those of diverse communities) must be given the space to share ideas on what will make real change.
Piper
Work Cited
Carol J. Adams, interview by Annie Potts. “The Politics of Carol J. Adams.” Antennae, Autumn 2010, p. 20. University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, myCourses, WGS 307-7101: Ecofeminism: Philosophy & Practice – On-Line (2025 Spring CE1). Accessed 5 March 2025.
Gillis, Melissa J., and Andrew T. Jacobs. “Chapter 9: Gender-Based Violence.” Introduction to Women’s and Gender Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2017, 2020, New York, pp. 272. Accessed 5 March 2025.
I LOVED your analysis! Especially of the image you found on your own! “Plus, a bonus: women may try the soup with permission from male advertising executives.” That was funny and so true. It’s like they’re saying “oh, silly women, we know you don’t like beef, but this soup is so good we’ll let your dainty little woman bodies try it!” The administrative assistant at my job just went to a work conference where it was mainly male leaders attending on day one and their meal was steak tips. When the (mainly female) administrative assistants came on day 2, the meal was grilled chicken, so despite your ad appearing old, this mindset is still prevalent unfortunately. The media perpetuates the idea that meat, especially beef, is a male food, while women are allowed to watch the men enjoy the meat and then eat some only if allowed. Men are definitely considered the consumer by meat advertisers, and this ad shows it. Even if it is directed towards women, it isn’t considering their needs as a full human being. It is directed towards women, who mainly did/do the shopping, to tell them how much their husband will like the meaty soup, and that, hey, as an added bonus, you might actually be allowed to eat the soup, too, and even better, you might actually like it even though we know women don’t like meat. All of these ads remove or negate the animal and the oppression they face in the interest of meat-eaters while also using women’s subjugation to sell the meat.
The blog might enhance its impact by examining the influence of modern media in sustaining harmful stereotypes and narratives. It could explore how social media platforms, advertisements, and popular culture reinforce concept like strength and dominance tied to meat consumption and masculinity. Also, it would be beneficial to discuss how contemporary movements advocating for animal rights and gender equality are challenging or rethinking these ideas.
Hi
Overall Great Post!! I loved how detailed your blog is – It was very clear and direct. I wanted to touch base on the image that shows a piece of meat hanging dressed in a black crop shirt and a short skirt with the phrase “It’s not okay to treat women like one” this is a strong visual metaphor. This provoking imagery shows the objectification and dehumanization of women in society. Even though it may seem disturbing, the difference between the meat and the woman shows us how women can be viewed in terms that strip them of their humanity. This honesty is shown a lot in today’s media and advertising, where women’s bodies are often shown in ways that just highlight their physical body parts instead of paying attention to their talents, and abilities. The phrase in the photo can also show us the troubling nature of how this photo is viewed. It’s a way to show us that women shouldn’t be treated based on their physical forms. By being able to break down each photo and make connections clearly connecting to Adam’s message about the objectification connected in both the meat and societal views on women. It allows us that did not analyze this photo to deeply understand its connection to the main message.
Hi Jessica,
I appreciated your thought-provoking write-up on the propaganda surrounding special specimens, particularly in the context of animal consumption. The connection you made to Carol J. Adams’ 2012 speech at the Vegetarian Congress in Toronto was insightful, highlighting the ways in which societal norms perpetuate harmful attitudes towards animals and gender.
Adams’ example of the advertisement featuring a man eating a fried chicken sandwich to assert his masculinity was particularly striking. It’s disturbing to see how marketing campaigns reinforce toxic masculinity and encourage harm towards animals.
Your write-up reminded me of a recent experience at work, where a coworker was shamed for crying after losing their parents. The comment “men don’t cry” perpetuated a harmful stereotype, implying that men should suppress their emotions to maintain a masculine image.
As you pointed out, this type of messaging is not only damaging to humans but also perpetuates harm towards animals. The marketing of animal products, such as eggs and chicken, often relies on feminized stereotypes, reinforcing a patriarchal worldview.
Thank you for sharing your insights and highlighting the importance of critical thinking in challenging these harmful narratives.