Throughout this blog post you’ll see three images by Carol J. Adams showing the sexualization and objectification of women and animals/nature. The image above depicts a pig dressed as an American 1950s sex icon, Marylyn Monroe. The artist most likely chose to have the pig dressed in her famous white dress because it represents a feminine and beautiful nature. Marylyn Monroe was known for her beauty and sexual allure and she stands out as symbol for “how sexism objectifies women” (1). Adams talks about how animals and humans are often separated and considered underserving of human emotion or attention. She states, ” being dismissive is inattention with an alibi” . Ignoring this type of advertising allows women and animals to be further objectified in the industry. This type of oppression will continue to occur if its not publicly confronted by a male dominated economy.
This image is says it all… Top have of the “person” is a burger saying “eat me” while the bottom half shows off a lady with sexy legs in red high heels. Here we have an image clearly showing how women and animals are objectified in the food industry. Cows and women are consumed by people who find this attractive and this sign welcomes this dialogue into its establishment by posting this offensive image. Adams terms images like this as anthropornography because it poses animals in a sex trafficking format. I find this exploitative image to be highly offensive and gross! This image shows how “women are animalized, and animals are sexualized and feminized” (2).
This image states, “Best butts in Georgia” with sexualized cartoon pig pointing to a food menu. Apparently this BBQ restaurant in Georgia thinks they will generate more business by painting a cartoon pig as a “sexy woman”. Adams mentions how this sexualization of animals is commonly shown in pigs as women (3). They try to make “misery look sexy” (2) because of the trauma and slaughter that pigs endure before they make it to the dinner table.
“We’re about to reveal something you’ll really drool over” -Arby’s
Instead of a woman holding her breasts, shes holding on to burgers from the Arby’s menu. This is an extreme example of the objectification of women that is sexually driven. Its also sexualizing animals because its comparing “drooling over meat” to “drooling over an exposed woman”. This double meaning is dangerous to the image of women because by using this in advertising, you’re subjecting all women to negative sexual attention.
Citations:
- www.theguardian.com/film/features/featurepages/0,,498050,00.html
- Adams, Carol J, et al. “The Politics of Meat: The Antennae Journal of Nature in Visual Culture Interview with Annie Potts ‘The Politics of Carol J. Adams,’ with Annie Potts Was First Published in Antennae, 14 (Autumn 2010): 12–24. Used by Permission.” The Carol J. Adams Reader : Writings and Conversations 1995–2015, no. 14, 2010, pp. 1–24., doi:10.5040/9781501324369.0009.
- Adams , Carol J. “Examples of The Sexual Politics of Meat.” Carol J Adams , caroljadams.com/examples-of-spom/.
- https://chocolateclass.wordpress.com/2016/04/07/female-objectification-in-modern-chocolate-advertising/
Hi Holly,
I like your point on how Carol Adam’s discusses women and animals being separated from humanity and any emotional connection. Do you think this is why women are dehumanized as animals? When we separate women from their identities and depict them as a species dominated by human consumption, we don’t see them as equal to men. In this light, women are not deserving of any human connection because they have lost any qualities that make them human women. We only see them for what they offer us- breasts, legs, butts, etc. We break them down into parts we can utilize for our own desires and needs similar to how we justify our consumption of animals. I really like Adam’s explanation of this and I think she can better explain what I am trying to say, “a subject first is viewed, or objectified, through metaphor. Through fragmentation the object is severed from its ontological meaning. Finally, consumed, it exists only through what it represents. The consumption of the referent reiterates its annihilation as a subject of importance in itself,” (14).
Hi Holly,
I find the humanized non-human animals in advertisements to be most disturbing. The hamburger with legs is a little strange, but maybe feels less sexualized because it’s less human. The humanized non-human animals don’t just feel sexualized, but they also make me think of fetishes. Another thing I’m noticing is the way that the human bodies are being split up. Oftentimes the humans in the ads aren’t full humans. They’re either cropped to focus just on a certain body part, or butchered to merge with animal body parts. Interesting concept of human bodies being visually butchered to sell actually butchered non-human animal bodies in the form of food. . . Anyways, great post!
Erica