Neither Man Nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals by Carol J. Adams

Neither Man Nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals Reviews

• 
  Maya

  As a radical feminist and a moral realist/deontologist, I often find myself at odds with Carol Adams' eco-feminism, her moral/cultural relativism, and her post-modern approach that seems to put jargon and intellectual obscurantism ahead of clarity and a concrete analysis of power. But as a vegan and as someone who cares about the environment, I'm interested in reading up on whatever vegan-feminist literature is available to date.
  
  Along with "The Sexual Politics of Meat", "Neither Man nor Beast" is an alright - not brilliant, just alright - piece of work. It's evidently very well-researched, and Adams presents some very interesting ideas - I particularly liked her arguments as to why the women's movement should embrace veganism/animal rights. For better or for worse, however, I tend to prefer writing that is clear, bold, and passionately incites the reader to act, and Carol Adams work fails on that front.
• 
  Peacegal

  Carol J. Adams, known for her writings on the intersections of oppression between human beings (especially women) and animals, collects a variety of her essays in the compendium Neither Man Nor Beast.
  
  While many would expect this to be a difficult read, in fact the text is enlivened by Adams’s witty (but true) asides, such as
  
  It appears that even atheists believe they have a God-given right to eat animals.
  
  or
  
  A startling but little-known fact: most abstainers from flesh know a great deal more about “its” production than do most consumers of dead animals. … Whereas abstainers generally know a great deal more about the production of flesh than the consumers, discursive power resides in those with the least knowledge. … [Peter Singer said] “The average viewer must know more about the lives of cheetahs and sharks than he or she knows about the lives of chickens or veal calves.”
  
  There are also some “fun facts” regarding the history of meat industry influence upon government agencies: The beef and dairy industries loudly protested the introduction of the food pyramid in place of the old “four food groups”, causing the USDA to scrap it until 1992, after an expensive series of surveys confirmed that consumers did not find the guide “confusing” as the industries had claimed.
  
  These insights lighten the mood of an otherwise grimly serious topic—the oppression and abuse of humans and animals. To Adams, exploited beings seem to have few friends, even among those who purport to speak out for them:
  
  Can one eat a dead fish or a dead chicken and still be a vegetarian? Yes, according to the
  ASPCA, who [in 1991] coined the words pesco-vegetarian and pollo-vegetarian.
  
  (And, of course, Adams’s opinion of PETA’s one-step-shy-of-“Playboy” advertisements is already well documented.)
  
  Carol Adams’s mantra could very well be “No one is free while others are oppressed.” She is not a fan of using worlds like “Holocaust” to describe factory farming, just as she rejects the use of animal words (like “pig” or “bitch”) to put down human beings. Adams states:
  
  We must locate our ethic for animals so that it does not hurt people who are oppressed.
  
  Like in her other, more well-known works, the intersection of oppression between disenfranchised people and virtually all animals is studiously documented. The oppressor (rich, white, male) doesn’t change; only the faces of the oppressed. Consider the Harvard University men’s club that “promised those club members who attended the club’s parties ‘a bevy of slobbering bovines fresh for the slaughter.’” Or the meatpacking industry’s
  grim effects upon poor people of color. Or how about the “’woman-breaking’ tradition of late nineteenth-century pornography that was built on horse-breaking images.”
  
  Then there are the astonishingly similar approaches employed by animal use industries across the board. People who don’t eat and/or kill animals aren’t just unmanly, they might just be nonexistent. The meat industry gives us slogans like “A meal just isn’t a meal without meat” and “Beef: Real Food for Real People,” which would be pretty damn hilarious if so many people didn’t believe them. And then we have Henry Foster, founder of Charles River Laboratory, informing us, “If you don’t use animals, you don’t do research.” And from the other corner, there’s hunting defender José Ortega y Gasset reminding the public, “Death is essential because without it there is no authentic hunting.”
  
  Adams has little desire to play “Defensive Omnivore Bingo” and waves aside the common arguments of McDonald’s fans with ease.
  
  “Yeah, but chimpanzees eat meat!”
  
  Dead flesh constitutes less than 4 percent of chimpanzees’ diet; many eat insects, and they do not eat dairy products. Does this sound like the diet of human beings?
  
  “Well, so did the Native Americans!”
  
  [quoting Native American activist Andy Smith]: Interest in Native American hunting to the exclusion of all other aspects of Native culture, is another way of holding to images of Native Americans as savages … Moreover, what is true for Native cultures is not transferable to mainstream American culture. Such people would better spend their time preserving Native rights than appropriating their culture.”
  
  Although it addresses an issue little discussed in our movement, I’m not sure I really like the chapter “Abortion Rights and Animal Rights.” It’s not because it doesn’t discuss a timely phenomenon; Adams points out how many anti-abortion campaign materials pointedly harass and attack the animal rights movement, despite the movement’s refusal to take a stance on the issue. Animals have even been attacked in the abortion wars, such as when “pro-lifers” decapitated an abortion counselor’s cat in an act of terrorism.
  
  Why do so many pro-lifers feel the need to attack animal advocates? That’s a question that deserves an answer, and Adams gives it succinctly:
  
  This non-anthropocentrism is deeply threatening to antiabortionists and accounts for some of the many instances in which animal defenders are accosted by antiabortionists. The human/animal dualism undergirds the anthropocentrism of antiabortionists. Eliminate that foundational dualism, and the moral claims of antiabortionists, that human fetal life has an absolute claim upon us, is overthrown.
  
  In simpler terms,
  
  To imagine that we would meet animals in heaven may be a disquieting thought for those who eat them.
  
  I suppose what I did not like about this chapter was the fact that Adams seemed to be advocating an official position on abortion for the animal movement, which I think would be a terrible idea. When it comes to animal activism, I’m for the “big tent” approach rather than the “exclusive club.”
  
  By far the most difficult chapter to read, (and I have read this book many times) is the one titled “Bringing Peace Home.” In this one, Adams focuses upon the
  violence connection between spousal and child abuse and animal abuse. Abusers often use
  
  a threat or actual killing of an animal, usually a pet as a way of establishing or maintaining control
  
  over victims. Adams cites several real-life examples, describing abusers like Michael Lowe, who shot the pet dog in front of the family. Three months later he did the same to his wife. Then he killed himself. In addition, evidence suggests that children exposed to chronic violence also often become abusive towards animals.
  
  Unlike many other authors, Adams has the guts to explore the possibility that legal animal killing and abuse
  may be tied to family violence, too. Adams cautions:
  
  Environmental and eco-feminist philosophers who appeal to a hunting model of any culture need to rethink the implications of applying it to the dominant Western cultures.
  
  
• 
  Merve

  Etin Cinsel Politikası kitabıyla hayran kalmıştım bu kadının yaşama, öznelere bakış açısına vr üslubuna. Feminizm ve hayvan haklarının kesişim noktaları, farklı yanları, kadınlara ve hayvanlara yönelen kibirli eril gözün acımasız, ırkçı, türcü ve cinsiyetçi uygulamalarına dair yaklaşımının yer aldığı kitap Etin Cinsel Politikalarını tamamlayan bir eser. Bir hayvanı, bir kadını tanımlayan şey nedir? Bir kadını tüketim nesnesi haline getiren şeyle bir hayvanı yenilebilir başka bir hayvanı ise evlat gibi sevip beraber yaşanabilir kılan, cinsiyetçi ve türcü yaklaşımları meşru hale getiren şey nedir? Bu nasıl bir sisteme oturtulmuştur ve bu mekanizma nasıl çalışır? Sorgulamanın yolunu açan, bunu fotoğraflarla destekleyen oldukça önemli bir yapıt.
• 
  Corvus

  This is one of Adams' hidden gems that takes feminism a step further than The Sexual Politics of Meat, yet is not as well known and this is a shame. This book delves further into issues of race and class and other things intersecting with the exploitation of nonhuman animals and is equally as important.
• 
  Emily

  This was a very interesting read on the objectification of nonhuman animals and the dehumanization of women. I didn't always agree with her analyses but I always found them thought-provoking. It would get more stars from me if it wasn't so theory heavy- much of Carol's other books on topics close to this one are fairly dense so I shouldn't be surprised, but some of her ideas were difficult to wrap my mind around because of the language used. Ultimately, the idea that both nonhuman animals and women are dissected and consumed in different but related ways is a really fascinating idea to ruminate on. I would recommend this book to someone interested in the intersection of speciesism and misogyny, but would probably recommend something a little lighter to those who aren't as familiar with the topics.
• 
  Kasandra

  Some reviews feel it is too theoretical and perhaps difficult to understand. That's rather striking to me because I found it accessible and refreshingly straight to the point. I particularly liked that even though thematically all chapters are related, each chapter addresses different angles of the underlying theme; i.e. the overlap between women's and animals' oppression. If you have a passing interest in feminist philosophy, animal ethics, or the admittedly niche feminist-animal ethics, it's well worth the read. If you are a fan of Adams's other works then it's absolutely required reading. She also provides some really interesting stuff on Christian feminist theology and Genesis, so additionally, if you are interested in Mary Daly's work this may be of interest to you as well.
• 
  Tarah

  this suffers quite a bit from its dated-ness, which is really my fault for having this on my shelf for literally 15 years before I finally got to it. But it's an interesting read for feminist vegetarians (like myself) or people interested in either.
• 
  Marj Handog

  "Such words as meat, beef, pork, veal or poultry are the Adolph's Tenderizers of language: They make gruesomeness palatable."
• 
  Christine Hamm

  I used this book as part of my dissertation connecting animals and women in poetry, and she really opened my eyes to the use of science and language in the oppression and destruction of animals.
• 
  Katrina Sonetos B.

  I’ve been a casual, inarticulate vegan for years now without delving much into books about this topic - I just figured it would be “preaching to the choir” so to speak. I’m already vegan; I didn’t need to be convinced. This book tickled that favourite feeling in my brain - of seeing past-seen things in new ways with new eyes. The depth of the parallels Carol J Adams draws between humanism, women’s liberation, the pro choice movement which she maps to the movement to see the choice to let animals live free of suffering and to choose their own life, allowed me to see in kaleidoscopic frames beyond my own views. Her prose is always lucid, rarely academic, and the deftly curated imagery and pop culture references are well wielded.
• 
  Burak Yaman

  Etin Cinsel Politikası'ndan sonra okunması gereken bir kitap. Ama en azından birkaç hafta zaman bırakmak gerekiyor. Çünkü Etin Cinsel Politikası'nda okunan şeylerin insanın kafasında oturmaya ihtiyacı var. Daha sonrasında insanın kafasında bazı sorular oluşuyor. İşte o soruları cevaplayan kitap bu kitap.
• 
  Sarah

  This cover has an interesting flicker with my babyhood in which I once 'graced' the cover of my city's newspaper as I stared entranced at several women in cow costumes (outside a store called "When Pigs Fly". The caption said something about dreaming of milk--ironically, since I was raised largely vegan and never had milk stolen from cows as a baby.
  Can't wait to read this book.
• 
  Jennifer

  One of the reasons I'm a vegetarian.