A feminist vegan suggested that meat eating is misogynistic, xenophobic. It is just as absurd as it sounds
Undaunted by its push to vilify the so-called “gender binary” of male and female and introduce new hierarchical structures to reset the status quo, the progressive left remains on the move to problematize everything. The latest victim? Meat.
A debate was held by the Oxford Union in November about how much meat is consumed. “This House Would Move Beyond Meat,”Carol J. Adams (vegan feminist) presented the funny clips. The viral video went viral after they were posted on social media. Adams, the writer of ‘The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory’ and ‘The Pornography of Meat’, regurgitated the decades-old argument that meat consumption is not only problematic in the sense that it exploits animals for the purposes of basic sustenance (as often repeated by vegans in general), but also that meat consumption has gendered and racialized components.
In ‘The Pornography of Meat’, Adams “draws the visual comparison between meat advertised on a shelf and women portrayed in particular advertisements or magazines.”She “advises that the idea of consumption plays a significant role in a culture that compares women to products.”
While the metaphor may work to explain sexual objectification, Adams’ arguments take a very literal dimension in her attack on meat consumption at the Oxford Union debate. In fact, meat consumption is racist, sexist and xenophobic.
“21st century animal eating requires a new complicity in a new colonialism,”Adams, claims “These events especially affect girls and young women. Your hamburger comes with a dose of misogyny.”
“The assumption that the best protein comes from corpses is a racist belief,” she continues, arming the “problematic” ramifications of meat consumption with political buzzwords to make it seem worthy of a cause.
No, it’s a fact that the best protein comes from animal sources. It is difficult to eat a vegan diet without modern medicines and vitamins. The Vegan Society has noted this. “it is difficult for anyone to get a daily vitamin D intake of 10mcg from food.”
Supplements or fortified foods are the only reliable sources of vitamin D for vegans. There are red meat, fish and eggs for everyone else.
Vitamin B12 also has to be considered. Vitamin B12 is the same. Vegans and vegetarians are at high risk for deficiency. This vitamin is also found in meat.
Adams asks: “How do you know the animal would have picked you to feed off its corpse?”No animal will choose to eat its dead body. An animal’s instinct is to survive and sustain its life – just as humans, who are also animals, must consume meat. To live and thrive, not only. Our evolutionary adaptations cannot be denied.
Adams adds that meat consumption can be considered sexist. He cites how popular culture portrays it. “flooded with references to sexy cows, sexy pigs, sexy chickens, sexy fishes, who all just wanna have fun.”
Halloween costumes aside, which could include an endless variation of “sexy” outfits, there is no place on earth where animals are considered “sexy.” Indeed, bestiality is not only illegal in most parts of the world, but the recommended punishment for having sex with animals is death – in two sections of the Bible. It is not the “normal” Adams portrays it to be.
She may be running low on talking points and she also makes arguments. “Masculinity, a construct of the gender binary, facing constant destabilization feels always under threat and eating animals is its protection racket.”
It’s hardly the salient point she thinks it is. An objective argument is not possible with a subjective judgment of value. Her argument is not a good one if she uses buzzwords to make political points of things humans and their primate ancestors did for many thousands of years.
Bizarrely, despite the heckling and raucous laughter Adams faced throughout the debate, the vegan won by a count of 115 votes to 105 – once and for all proving that feelings don’t care about facts. It is possible to only assume that this verdict was made out of regret.
Ultimately, the Oxford Union debate is just one of many pointless, academic arguments being held across universities and colleges throughout the West – the product of social elites indifferent to common, everyday issues faced by the working class who don’t have the luxury of consuming overpriced supplements and almond milk.
Statements, opinions and views expressed in this column do not reflect those of RT.
[ad_2]
