AethelBridd a écrit :
La physiologie étant différente entre les deux sexes, il est fort possible qu'il y ait quelques différences de comportement alimentaire (comme dans d'autres domaines). Je suis un peu plus étonné que ce soit rapporté au genre plutôt qu'au sexe, mais pourquoi pas car la physiologie ne fait pas tout.
C'est parce qu'on ne naît pas femme : on le devient
Sinon, voir The Sexual Politics of Meat de Carol J. Adams :
« No book has stimulated as much discussion and interest in the connections between
feminism, animal advocacy and vegetarianism as Carol Adams 1990 classic The
Sexual Politics of Meat—now in its tenth anniversary edition with a new Preface.
With growing global demand for animal products and vast increases in the numbers of
animals slaughtered to provide them, this book is as relevant as ever. [/quote]
It is widely accepted that the factory farming of animals is associated with
considerable environmental damage; that the welfare and rights of farmed animals are
frequently ignored; that vegetarians, on average, live longer and healthier lives than
non-vegetarians; and that meat-eating is deeply symbolic of masculinity and
patriarchal social relations (see Rifkin, 1992; Penman, 1996; Tansey and D’Silva,
1999). The questions is, what makes meat eating a distinctly feminist issue? Is the
refusal to eat meat simply a means to disrupt a patriarchal order that uses access to
meat to reinforce status and social control, or is there more to it? Adams argues that
there is.
The Sexual Politics of Meat revolves around the idea of the ‘absent referent’; the
erasure of the animal or the woman from language describing practices in which
violence against animals or women is inherent. While, for example, the preparation
and consumption of meat invokes a complex array of meanings—regarding health,
status, masculinity, the proper meal, power and so on—the animal that is the source of
this meat, and its death, are excluded from these meanings and disassociated from the
end product and its ingestion. Thus, just as feminism has sought to render visible and
contestable otherwise taken-for-granted practices such as rape within marriage,
slogans such as ‘meat is murder’ are used by animal activists to challenge
euphemisms—such as ‘beef’, ‘pork’ and ‘humane slaughter’—and the practices they
legitimate.
It is important to note that the frequent status of women and animals as
absent referents is not just an interesting coincidence or parallel. In fact, a great deal
of The Sexual Politics of Meat is devoted to demonstrating the ways in which the
objectification and redefinition of women and animals as consumable commodities
are interlinked. Woman frequently are represented within popular culture as cuts of
meat at the same time that animals destined for the table are, conversely, represented
often as women. The use of sexually provocative imagery in both cases symbolically
links sex, violence, male dominance and the belief that these are what women,
perhaps secretly, really desire. In the end, the domination of animals is as basic to the
practice of patriarchy in the West as the domination of women and sexual minorities.
While The Sexual Politics of Meat counterpoises the cultural practice of representing
the human body as naturally omnivorous with arguments against it, Adams is careful
to avoid overt endorsement of an essentialist argument for feminist vegetarianism.
Consequently, The Sexual Politics of Meat provides powerful arguments to suggest a
convergence of interest between feminism and ethical vegetarianism. And it provides
an overdue voice for the unheard concerns of feminist vegetarians about the
contradiction between campaigning against one set of injustices while participating in
another. »
https://www.researchgate.net/p(...)ism_M
