Patriarchy of Pork

mspig

While reading through my environmental ethics text book today (that will be used for a class called Philosophy and the Environment…woot!) I came across a section called “Patriarchy of Pork or Feminist Fuss” in a chapter called “Ethics and Animals”.

The section is only about a page long (a bit less, actually) but it goes on to outline a theory. The author of the book first pointed out that when asking his university classes who were vegitarians it was a majority of women that raised their hands. This isn’t an outlandish claim, and I believe that. What is wildly outlandish is his reasoning behind this.

Back-in-the-day, he says, women would cook for their family. The daughters and the mother would prepare the meal and set the table. The men would them come, and they would get the plates of food first. As they are passed around the table, all the men would take the meat, so that when it got to the women, there would be none left for them… So he argues that it is this patriarchial ritual that has made the women of today become vegitarians more so than men…

I fail to see the logic. Like, I understand how some women in these circumstances would just accept that fact they were probably not going to get any meat (oh why not just make more? or take some first? …whatever.) but as for this making people vegitarians now?…With the vegitarians I lived with last year it was a decision based on animal rights, health or the environment – not some internal pressure to release their oppressed past.

On that note of crazy feminist things, Feministing has the craziest anti-feminist quotes up, my favorite is:

I am not defending radical feminism, which I consider to be a minor mental illness…

Tags: × × × × × × × × × × × ×
About Katie Kish

3 Comments

  1. Was it Rush Limbaugh that called feminism a mental illness? Or Pat Robertson?

  2. I don’t think it was either… Rush calls feminists feminazis, and Robertson said that feminism is about women leaving their husbands to practice witchcraft and become lesbians.

  3. Interesting, but perhaps you should spell the word ‘vegetarian’ correctly…
    I know, I’m anal about spelling. Personally, I don’t agree with this claim. Maybe there is some basis of truth to it, but I have studied the history of vegetarianism a little, and it rarely had anything to do with an inability to get meat, as this book claims women were left without after the men ate. Most vegetarians throughout the ages have been so because of philosophical reasons and ethical reasons, not because they simply couldn’t afford meat, or there was none to be had. I’m sure this was the case in some instances, but not the general rule. As far as WHY more women are than men, well, because men are taught to be tough, and eating the flesh of dead animals (and historically, animals the man or boy killed himself) is a sign of species superiority. Women, on the other hand, are taught to be pretty, polite, subserviant, etc. therefore it is not surprising that they tend to question the ethical aspects of living off the death of another species, whereas men don’t even bother to question the ethical side of what they do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>