My interpretation of the picture is the idea that humans only see the end result of a long ongoing and inhumane process. There is a character dressed as a chef cutting up a piece of meat that would look appetizing to most people. However, that piece of meat was a living creature at one point and it went through a lot of pain and suffering until it was killed and put on the dinner table. The way the character is standing and cutting the meat resembles the idea that humans have a lot of power and control over animals instead of thinking that they are equivalent to animals.
Two gendered foods are salad and steak. Steak is associated with men and salad is associated with women. This idea comes from a social construct that has made people believe that men will not eat a salad, or it would be strange for a man to eat a salad. It also can relate to the idea of women being more equal to nature while men are seen as above nature. I found a study that looks at how women are more likely to be vegetarian then men. There are a number of different factors and some of them go back to hundreds or thousands of years ago. Men are most commonly known to be hunters over women. Over time it has molded society and made women more likely to be vegetarian while a lot of men actually kill animals for themselves to eat. Back when hunting and gathering was necessary for survival women would go out and collect plants and herbs for there meal. Another factor is that people associate meat with masculinity, There are all sorts of ways that contribute to not a lot of men being vegetarian (Love and Sulikowski).
Gaard explains the relationship between humans and animals. She starts off the article by talking about a bird in a store that she could see was not getting treated very good and did not get a lot of attention from the owner. She explains that the way humans treat animals can be compared sexism and oppression of women. Animals who are pets, farm animals, zoo animals, have any sort of tie with humans are oppressed in some way. When animals interact with humans their freedom is taken away from them. Gaard states “To be a pet is to have all one’s life decisions controlled by someone else: when and what we eat, how to act, whom to socialize with, whether or not to reproduce. If the situation were offered to humans we’d call it slavery” (Gaard 20). Pets can be treated very well or not treated well at all but either way it does not make it right. Animals should not be in captivity they are meant to be in the wild living their own life on their own terms. All pets and other animals that are confined by humans do not get to experience that choice. Gaard mentioned the bird at the beginning because that bird lives a controlled life in captivity but also explains this idea of the power humans have or at least believe they have over animals. Curtin focuses on this idea of moral vegetarianism. This considers that if necessary humans can kill an animal for food, but if it is not necessary then humans should find other options. There are many other forms of food and in the United States especially people have access to these other foods. Factory farm animals endure so much pain and suffering to then be killed for a human to have for a meal. Curtain explains that if you are lost and starving you can kill an animal and eat it, but if that is not the case then find something else to eat. When men choose to be moral vegetarians they are choosing to support women in their attempts to protect animal rights.
I found website “the kill clock” to be very disturbing. I think humans have managed to cover up a lot of what really happens in farming factories. I think people are not educated enough on what animals endure because I know that I am always learning new things. If what happened behind the scenes was revealed to more people I think a lot could be changed. Humans have created an industry that is brutal and disturbing, and billions of animals should not have to experience that.
Love, Hamish J, and Danielle Sulikowski. “Of Meat and Men: Sex Differences in Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Toward Meat.” Frontiers in Psychology, Frontiers Media S.A., 20 Apr. 2018,
Hi Lindsey
I really like your perspective on the image and hadn’t thought of this myself. I didn’t consider what it was before. As you mention many people forget what it takes (or the process) to get food to their table. It really is an inhumane process in the majority of cases. You take it a step further and assert that humans have a lot of power over animals instead of thinking that we are equal. Rather than having a mutual respect for the animals, our environment, and our ecosystem humans have asserted themselves a patriarchal hierarchy of the food chain. You really made me consider the image in a different light. I like what you had to say about Curtin’s moral vegetarianism. Although I think its also worth mentioning that not only does she mention that animals should not be killed if there is a choice but also notes that most meat and dairy products do not come from “mom-and-pop” farms but from factories that promote unsafe (and inhumane) practices. Further she mentions that eating practices in industrialized countries, like that of the U.S. has a negative impact on third world countries stripping them of land to grow their food to make way for food production (beef) for industrialized countries. This practice doesn’t benefit third world countries and actually leaves them with very little resources for proving food for them. I think this is how Curtin is trying to show us how eating meat has turned our eating habits into a patriarchal system that thrives on masculine traits and not feminine ones. As eco feminist both Curtin and Gaard make substantial points about allowing ourselves to reflect on our eating practices and how they relate to eco feminism. Thanks for your insight!