Reviews for Neither man nor beast

The average rating for Neither man nor beast based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2011-08-07 00:00:00 M T Crump 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.

Review # 2 was written on 2012-04-29 00:00:00 Elver Allen 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.