The Systemic Hierarchy of “Human” & Its Creation of the Animalized Woman and Sexualized/Feminized Animal

Carol J. Adams is a feminist-vegan advocate and activist whose work is not only influential but groundbreaking in her vision.

Philosophical activist Lisa Kemmerer put it best when she said Adams “unfolds her grizzly discoveries with a wry sense of humor, and sends readers out into the world with a fresh vision—a vision that pierces through the images on the magazine rack, in the frozen meat section of the grocery store, on billboards, or in television advertisements. Adams’ work heightens awareness, shifts thinking, and has the power to alter behavior…” (Kemmerer). 

And that’s exactly how I felt after reading her interview and editorial piece, “The War on Compassion,” in Antennae Project’s The Politics of Meat issue—altered. Once Adams peels back the curtain to expose the damaging way in which our patriarchal society categorizes everything around us through intrinsically oppressive systemic hierarchies, there’s no un-seeing or un-knowing it. 

Adams emphasizes that under our current mode of thinking, “We are human animals; they, those we view as not-us, are nonhuman animals” (5). And, “as long as the definition exists through negation…the inscription of ‘human’…accepts that there is something fixed about humanness which we can establish ‘humans’ possess, and importantly, that others do not possess” (5). By causing a split, or differentiation between categories, a hierarchy is inherently created. We’ve seen it all before—dehumanizing racism and genocide. But what about those who aren’t deemed ‘human’ to begin with? 

That’s when we’re left with speciesism. “Speciesism has always been a toll of colonialism: creating a hierarchy of color and characteristics” (Adams 8). Under speciesism, instead of genocide, it’s meat-eating and hunting. Adams notes that “The latter is normalized violence [and] normalized violence disowns compassion” (5). 

Consider the term “dehumanizing” itself—it denotes humanness is a quality that can be stripped away by oppression. And what’s left in the absence of humanness? Animal. Why do we relegate lesser value to the term “animal”? Adams opened my eyes when she wrote, “When people say, They treated us like animals…they are saying They treated us as though we had no feelings, as though we were not alive…they mean, I was reduced to literal existence, I could not do, I was done to” (7). Why would we ever subject another living being to that kind of violence?

Why have we pedestalled “humanness” above the needs of other living beings and the Earth itself? And why must we continue to climb the patriarchal hierarchy by relegating those who do not fit into the androcentric Anglo-European patriarchal mold —like women, people of color, gender-con-conforming individuals, or those who don’t conform to perpetuated heterosexual norms—to the status of animals, another oppressed group by a different name. I have to agree with Adams when she argues, “Human society takes from the oppression of animals its structures and treatment of other humans…All originating forms of oppression can be traced to our treatment of animals. Domestication became the pattern from social subordination; predation the pattern for killing and extermination” (Adams 8).

Adams reveals this innate link of oppression and its prevalence in our daily lives through everyday images that highlight the women-animal or women-nature connection that patriarchal hegemony has underscored society with. The following images are ones Adams has collected on her website. 

In this image, the caption reads, “It’s not acceptable to treat a woman like one.” It’s not a false statement, but why are we ignoring the big picture here? It’s not acceptable to treat anyone like this—slaughtered for human consumption and desire—skinned and exposed—pierced through the flesh to hang on a hook. The ad cannot even bear to identify “the animal” by name. Adams notes that “the most efficient way to insure that humans do not care about the lives of animals is to transform nonhuman subjects into nonhuman objects” (Adams 6). Adams defines this as “massification” (6) when we strip animals of their individual identities through terms like ‘meat’ or, in the case of this ad ‘one’ as a means to alleviate empathy. “When nonhuman living beings are converted conceptually into false mass terms to enable their conversion into products, we come to believe that their deaths do not matter to themselves. Animals are killed because they are false mass terms, but they die as individuals. They die as a cow, not beef, as a pig, not pork. Each suffers his or her own death, and this death matters a great deal to the one who is dying” (Adams 7). Even as this ad tries to do good by drawing attention to the way that women not treated as equals to men, it unknowingly also reveals the inherent hierarchical thinking that places women, like animals, beneath fair treatment deserving of white, cis-heterosexual men. 

This image acknowledges the hardship involved in raising/supporting a child while navigating life as a single mother. It acknowledges the disadvantaged position of women, but it does so by equating it with beheading. The usual phrase, “I’m running around like a chicken with its head cut off,” is a much more violent and disturbing image that we use colloquially every day. Does the working single mother face extra burdens and obstacles via her disadvantaged placement in our systemically hierarchical society? Yes, undoubtedly. Is that as extreme as a beheading? Look at the parallels between women and the hen, women, and animals. The working single mother has been consumed by the desires of man and then tossed away once inconvenient, the same way that a “working” hen’s life is devolved to forced reproduction and eventual consumption at the hands of man’s hunger and desire. It’s a picture all to familiar and a connection that’s too apparent to dismiss. 

And now, consider the “world’s manliest sandwich.” What is it that makes this sandwich different than other sandwiches that will set this one as decidedly more masculine? Obviously, it’s the lack of a bun. “Meat eating is associated with virility, masculinity” (Potts 13). In the bun’s place are two pieces of chicken. The entire sandwich is a picture of domination. And as we all (unfortunately) know, domination = manly. It’s a meat on meat on meat sandwich. Slaughted chicken for a bun. Slaughted pig for the filling. Cheese is a product of forced, unceasing breeding to keep cows in an eternal state of reproduction to commodify their milk. Down to the mayo that’s made of egg yolks. The whole sandwich screams violence and oppression, and yet we look at that and say, “Wow! That’s a manly sandwich!” It only goes to show how deeply ingrained toxic masculinity and hierarchical oppression goes–to the very foundation of our thinking, to the bedrock of society. 

In the ever-cyclical “process of objectification/fragmentation/consumption [that] connects women and animals in a patriarchal culture…women are animalized, and animals are sexualized and feminized” (Potts 13). You see it all around us in the images above, in the other snapshots captured and displayed on Carol J Adam’s website, and even in children’s television shows… take a second look at Miss Piggy. I want to finish off this post with another image to contemplate —I wish I could say “a final image,” but the truth is, you’ll continue to notice the constant exposure of the animalized woman and sexualized animal paradigm in tv-ads, billboards, menu signs, food labels, grocery stores, etc., etc., etc. around you. 

I used to work at a bookstore, and as a result, I’m no stranger to the Fifty Shades of Grey craze. I’m all for women exploring their sexuality and honoring their pleasure, and if giving up all control to a dominating person does that for someone, I’m not here to judge. However, this parody cookbook just didn’t sit right with me…and now, after being exposed to Adams’ insights, I know why.

“‘Consumable’ animals are invariably portrayed as feminine, as sexual–available to men, just like female human beings” (Kemmerer). A chicken–a living, breathing individual–was slaughtered, and its dead body was bound and posed to convey enticement, that the chicken wanted this and wants you to consume it, ravish it. In Lisa Kemmerer’s overview of Carol J Adams’ The Pornography of Meat, she included a quote from Adams that sums up the debasement captured in this image, “Meat is like pornography before it was someone’s fun, it was someone’s life.”

Here’s the trailer for the cookbook. An initial viewing might find it humorous, as parodies are meant to be. But now, it’s impossible to un-see the violation of a corpse—a feminized, sexualized, dehumanized corpse—that is trussed up and displayed for what? Privileged human desire. All-encompassing human consumption. 

———

I’m interested to know your thoughts on the women-animal-consumer-consumed paradigm. Has Carol J. Adams altered your thinking? Do you notice similar images propagandized around us? What do you see as a way forward or away from the current systemic hierarchy we find ourselves amidst?

Works Cited

Adams, Carol J. “The War on Compassion.” Antennae, no. 14, 2010, pp. 5–11., static1.squarespace.com/static/54792ff7e4b0674c74cb719d/t/55dc8dace4b0ad76d7277cb7/1440517548517/ANTENNAE+ISSUE+14.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar. 2023. 

Kemmerer, Lisa. “The Pornography of Meat by Carol Adams.” Philosophy Now: A Magazine of Deas, Philosophy Now, 2006, philosophynow.org/issues/56/The_Pornography_of_Meat_by_Carol_Adams. 

Potts, Annie and Adams, Carol J. “The Politics of Carol J. Adams.” Antennae, no. 14, 2010, pp. 12–24., static1.squarespace.com/static/54792ff7e4b0674c74cb719d/t/55dc8dace4b0ad76d7277cb7/1440517548517/ANTENNAE+ISSUE+14.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar. 2023.