V. Women-Nature Association

The pictures included in the slide show are mostly advertisements – whether in print media, store front signs, billboards, or bus sides – emphasizing how common this imagery is and how we’ve been exposed to it regularly throughout our lives. Its prevalence speaks to how deeply engrained these portrayals of women and animals are, so much so that we are desensitized to it. I personally don’t think much of these images when I see them individually in a regular day, but seeing multiple together at once makes it quite disturbing and obvious that there is a more perverse ideology at play. I think these images also demonstrate the deep correlation between sexualization, objectification, and commodification, and how these all work to reinforce each other.

Three images that really stood out to me in the slide show were:

Pigs and cows were the animals you see the most personified as a seductress type woman figure. The Pig concept is particularly interesting because when I think of the connotations of referring to someone as a pig, its usually in the context of being messy or gross, especially in regards to men (i.e. men are pigs ), these images don’t seem to convey that. Or alternatively, perhaps they do in terms of sexual deviancy – by drawing a correlation between being *filthy* with perceived female sexuality. Perceived because most of the images add the same features to these animals to convey this “seductive” look – big eyes and lashes, big red lips, curvy figure, skimpy clothing. I consider this to be the standard or cliche “sexy woman” look, so by perceived I mean that this is the overarching social perception of what is sexy or maybe more accurately of a woman who is “sexually appealing” or promiscuous. As Adams states, “a domestic animal, posed in a sexually inviting way so that the body wanting to be consumed is explicitly represented” – promoting the violent consumption of both women and animals. With women animalized, and animals womanized, both are sexualized and objectified – a concept which Adams coins as anthropornography and elaborates on extensively in her interview.

I think that the animation of animals that personifies them is quite interesting also, especially when its being used in advertisements to sell meat. You would figure that people would want to increase the distance between them and the animals they eat, rather than decrease by giving them human features that emphasize their existence as living beings. However, Adams details the imagery of raw meat denotes a recent loss of life and highlights the fact that we’re consuming a dead being, which would for many be unappealing. The idea of rawness though also is related to female nakedness and the idea of being “raw” and “fresh” – as in unaltered. Overwhelmingly, the ideas used to uphold the exploitation of women and animals repeatedly contradict each other and are inconsistent, demonstrating the irrationality of it.

“She’ll tell you size doesn’t matter, she’s lying.” This advertisement demonstrates how ideas of masculinity also convey ideas that are harmful to men. This advertisement is obviously referring to penis size & Carl’s Jr. is especially known for its highly sexualized advertisements, which typically objectify women. This is the other side of the coin, depicting the correlation between masculinity and the consumption of meat – the more meaty, the more manly. This illustrates Adams statement that “male identification [is gained] by their choice of food.” The gross obsession we have with genitalia, and with making absurd connections to behavior and things like eating habits, limits access to masculinity and promotes toxic ideas about how men should act and look.

This image also captures the idea of rawness and nakedness I mentioned above. The turkey is depicted more closely to how we consume it, but with tan lines to emphasize a feminine form and portray the meat as cooked (ready to be consumed). “It makes animals degradation and suffering fun by making animals’ degradation sexy,” which in this image is done with the most basic and cheap effort – by throwing some tan lines on it. By simply presenting it as a naked women and adding not so discrete innuendos throughout the ad, the suffering of the turkey becomes feminized & sexualized, a comparison that is quite universally used in comical contexts. Thereby making the suffering of women and animals topics that are widely not taken seriously. There are strong racial implications in this advertisement as well, especially emphasized by the quote on the bottom. This is significant because historically and presently, WOC, particularly Black women, are sexualized and animalized far more often. It’s worth noting that this poll was likely posted in a college newspaper, evident by the “campus talk” – demonstrating how these ideas are present even in academic settings.

On image I found that depicts many of Adam’s claims is this:

For context, watch the accompanying commercial also: https://abancommercials.com/skinny-cow/ice-creams-manly-stealer-ad-commercial/4685/

The campaign is obviously meant to be a parody, mimicking other ridiculous “For Him” products. I found this to be especially ironic and indicative of a lack of self awareness considering the Skinny Cow brand itself participates in this gendered marketing as well. The Skinny Cow logo is even included in Adams slideshow, depicting a cow with the signature look I described above – big lashy eyes, big red lips, and curvy figure – further emphasized by a measuring tape around its waist. Skinny Cow sell low fat ice creams and other dairy snacks and seems to be a play on the whole idea of calling someone who is fat, particularly a women, a cow. The “For Him” cow is muscular and not made up, his stature is confident with hooves (hands) on his sides, contrary to the original skinny cow who is laying down in a seductive way showing off her curves. I believe this parody campaign that came out in 2016 was probably pretty limited in its circulation because there isn’t very much about it online and it seems that more people would’ve called out the brand for its hypocrisy in attempting to criticize a system that actively it participates in.