The Sexual Politics of Meat (20th Anniversary Edition) et plus d'un million d'autres livres sont disponibles pour le Kindle d'Amazon. En savoir plus
Acheter d'occasion
EUR 2,00
+ EUR 2,99 (livraison)
D'occasion: Bon | Détails
Vendu par Books Squared USA
État: D'occasion: Bon
Commentaire: Ships from the USA; Allow 15-20 business days for delivery. May take as long as 25 days. Book selection as BIG as Texas. Only lightly used. Book has minimal wear to cover and binding. A few pages may have small creases and minimal underlining.
Amazon rachète votre
article EUR 2,06 en chèque-cadeau.
Vous l'avez déjà ?
Repliez vers l'arrière Repliez vers l'avant
Ecoutez Lecture en cours... Interrompu   Vous écoutez un extrait de l'édition audio Audible
En savoir plus
Voir cette image

The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory (Anglais) Broché – 31 décembre 1997

Voir les 7 formats et éditions Masquer les autres formats et éditions
Prix Amazon Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Format Kindle
"Veuillez réessayer"
"Veuillez réessayer"
EUR 95,89 EUR 29,11
Broché, 31 décembre 1997
EUR 53,12 EUR 2,00
--Ce texte fait référence à l'édition Broché.

Offres spéciales et liens associés

Descriptions du produit

Présentation de l'éditeur

Taking its cues from the cinematic innovations of the controversial Austrian-born director Michael Haneke, Funny Frames explores how a political thinking manifests itself in his work. The book is divided into two parts. In the first, Oliver C. Speck explores some of Haneke's Deleuzian traits - showing how the theoretical concepts of the virtual, of filmic space and of realism can be useful tools for unlocking the problems that Haneke formulates and solves through filmic means. In the second, Speck discusses a range of topics that appear in all of Haneke's films but that haven't, until now, been fully noticed or analyzed. These chapters demonstrate how Haneke plays the role of "diagnostician of culture" how he reads - for example - madness, suicide and childhood. Like several other contemporary European directors, Haneke addresses topics considered difficult when measured by the standards of commercial cinema: the traumatic effects of violence, racism, and alienation. Funny Frames is an incisive and original contribution to the growing scholarship on one of the most intriguing auteurs of our time. --Ce texte fait référence à l'édition Broché .

Vendez cet article - Prix de rachat jusqu'à EUR 2,06
Vendez The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory contre un chèque-cadeau d'une valeur pouvant aller jusqu'à EUR 2,06, que vous pourrez ensuite utiliser sur tout le site Les valeurs de rachat peuvent varier (voir les critères d'éligibilité des produits). En savoir plus sur notre programme de reprise Amazon Rachète.

Détails sur le produit

En savoir plus sur l'auteur

Découvrez des livres, informez-vous sur les écrivains, lisez des blogs d'auteurs et bien plus encore.

Dans ce livre (En savoir plus)
Parcourir et rechercher une autre édition de ce livre.
Parcourir les pages échantillon
Couverture | Copyright | Table des matières | Extrait | Index
Rechercher dans ce livre:

Commentaires en ligne

Il n'y a pas encore de commentaires clients sur
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoiles

Commentaires client les plus utiles sur (beta) 28 commentaires
57 internautes sur 76 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
Agree with Adams' assertions, but repetitive, oddly-written 27 juin 2001
Par Bart Tare - Publié sur
Format: Broché
I read this book at the same time I was reading Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade. The two works seem to fit well together in some ways (and I noticed that Eisler quotes from one of Adams' later books in her book Sacred Pleasure). I agree with Adams' main assertion in this book: Throughout modern history meat has been associated with "domination"-type patriarchal values. I don't think there is any question that this meat = patriarchy assertion is true in most of our world's cultures. However, I find The Sexual Politics of Meat oddly and somewhat incoherently written. The book is not really comprehensively anthropological and it's not really comprehensively literary-analytical either. Adams seems to just jump around to (mostly) British-oriented novels and non-fiction works in a very haphazard way. I could not figure out exactly why she chose some of the books that she did. With the exception of some works like Percy Shelly's piece on meat-eating, many of her choices appeared quite random to me. And the other thing that bothered me was that Adams repeated herself a lot. I had trouble keeping track of the different works Adams was analyzing because she seemed to say the same thing about them over and over. Finally, in 2001, I find there is an obviousness to some of the examples Adams uses to make her point about meat-eating and patriarchal values. The Vietnam-era scene about someone refusing to eat meat in the house of prominent military person sticks out in my mind here. Perhaps when she wrote this down fifteen or so years ago, it seemed that our "majority culture" would have sympathized more with the military/macho meat guy. But I think today, more people (or a great many people) would sympathize with the person who refused to eat meat. I guess this book just doesn't seem as radical to me as it probably felt to Adams when she was writing it.
7 internautes sur 8 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
The Not-Sexy-At-All Politics of Meat 23 juin 2014
Par Daniel Jeffery - Publié sur
Format: Broché Achat vérifié
I read this book in the early nineties. It was an eye-opener for me then as a man, having had my mind socially trained by the sixties and seventies. Now my life-partner is working her way through it. She is a person who already has a great grasp on ethical-political-social-ethnic-psychological issues. Even she comes to me with the book in hand, saying "You've got to see this! Did you know about this?" I am thrilled that the book has had enough of a following to warrant a 20th Anniversary Edition. There may be hope for us after all...
Subtitled "A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory", this small book is no small work. Carol J. Adams was/is a pioneer in connecting words with images; Adams links words; like contexts with meanings, power to subordination, and humanity to kindness. This book is surely, but not only, a feminist treatise. It is also about the non-human animals which we debase with words. (Think, for example, how calling a female human " b**** " is actually a slander to females of two species at once...)
Adams addresses the demeaning of women and animals as well as societal correctives. I guess I need to read the book again because I don't recall if she addresses the effect of sexual politics on boys and men. How many PE coaches have told young males "You run like a girl"? How many boys and men have been called a " p**** ", again slandering females from two species at once. I've been challenged with "How do you handle having a woman for a boss?" But because of having been influenced by Carol J. Adams' writing, I do see the damage done to boys and men in these ways. And I see the secondary damage to girls and women, by insinuation, with such words.
The popular cable show "Mad Men" does a great job of illustrating the decade in which my mind developed a world view with frameworks for the treatment of women and animals. The show illustrates well the common assumptions of the early 1960's which I have to this day not completely overcome. There is a part of me that believes the writers of Mad Men have read The Sexual Politics of Meat, and that they are showing us how it was then while we ask ourselves "How different, if at all, are things now?"
Read, or join me in a re-read of,The Sexual Politics of Meat. Give a copy to a friend, to your library, to your church, school, or office. Not sexy. But it matters!
FYI: [...]
52 internautes sur 73 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
The Semiotics of Meat 6 août 2000
Par Eileen G. - Publié sur
Format: Broché
Does eating rice bring "wholeness to our fragmented relationships"? Carol Adams believes that it can, and in this beautifully crafted work she lays out the entire argument. She does not minimize her personal revulsion toward the eating of meat, and the meat industry, but she ventures widely - from there.
This serious, disturbing, and well-researched book covers many interrelated topics, among them women, linguistics, animal rights, violence and terror, political resistance and patriarchy.
Food's meaning and importance to sustenance, spirituality, ritual and symbol and more - is undisputed. Adams' interesting, accessible, and scholarly polemic builds a solid foundation for her fervent wish that feminists embrace vegetarianism, or more accurately, veganism - the rejection of all animal-based foodstuffs.
But Hitler was a vegetarian and an animal lover; and until I got to Adams' deconstruction of that seemingly hideous contradiction, I thought, "There goes the notion of the moral weight of eating habits!" But Adams tackles the topic of Hitler's vegetarianism (for example)efficiently and convincingly, and in doing so removes him from the discussion.
This is a serious, disturbing, and well-researched book. Adams sounds a rational and convincing call for all people with control over what they may choose to consume - to live and eat deliberately and mindfully. Definitely worth reading.
99 internautes sur 140 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
Adam's convictions get in the way of her arguments 14 mai 2002
Par Elizabeth A. Root - Publié sur
Format: Broché
The very depth of Adams' convictions about vegetarianism interfere with her ability to make a convincing argument to the skeptical. Quoting people who agree with her does not in and of itself prove that she is right - it only helps if they are making good arguments. But they seem so right and so obvious to Adams that she simply throws them at the reader. If the reader already agrees with her, this no doubt seems very eloquent, but if the reader doesn't, particularly if he/she has already thought about the issues, they are meaningless. She seems to have no idea how the omnivorous reader thinks, and therefore might be persuaded. Anyone making an argument that meat-eating offends god or the natural order would have to offer me a convincing explanation for the existence of carnivores and omnivores other than human beings. The usual argument that they are animals and have no choice makes no sense. If God disapproved of meat-eating, vegetarianism would be the default.

The attempt to equate meat-eating and white racism is beneath contempt and displays an incredible (willful?) ignorance of how other people live.

One unintended bit of humor is Adams' constant reference to "savory vegetables." Everyone I have quoted that to, included one vegan, thinks that is an oxymoron.

I also wonder about Adams' grasp of reality: she seems to confuse fiction with real events and to overrate the value of words. This seems like a classic case of the ivory tower. She offers quotes from novels as one might offer historical events. Adams repeatedly cites an obviously beloved scene where a vegetarian is, for some no-doubt bizarre reason, celebrating Thanksgiving with a very hostile host who not only insists upon putting meat on her plate, but pours gravy over her vegetables. I gather that it does not occur to Adams, as she enjoins vegetarians to rebuke meat-eaters, that we would find that as objectionable as the fictional character finds her host's behavior. I suspect that Adams has lost her hold on the distinction between defending the right of vegetarians to eat as they please (in which I would support her) and harassing other people who don't share their beliefs. Anyone taking the latter authoritarian stand will have to offer me a convincing, entitling authority.

I'll mention one last thing that bothers me about this book. Feminists, in their tendency to view their set of beliefs as a seamless garment, often argue that their other causes are an inherent part of feminism, which burdens feminism by making it more exclusionary. I don't often hear people making the opposite argument and burdening their other causes with feminism. Adams argues that vegetarianism should be considered an intrinsic part of feminism. Does she argue that feminism is an intrinsic part of vegetarianism? Does she tell vegans that they can't really consider themselves to be vegetarians if they don't support feminist issues?

Adams continues this argument in a book entitled The Pornography Of Meat.

Amazon previously threw this review off the website, although it was at the time the highlighted review, but I am defying them and putting it back on.
3 internautes sur 4 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
A slog to get through, but a classic for a reason. 15 février 2013
Par Jeffrey Cohan - Publié sur
Format: Broché Achat vérifié
It's hard not to feel ambivalent - strongly ambivalent - about this book.

Unless you're a student, or teacher, of feminist literature, it is somewhat of a slog to get through this book. "The Sexual Politics of Meat" is mainly an analysis of feminist literature and most of the works to which Adams refers will seem obscure to the average reader.

On the other hand, this book is considered a classic in the veg*n genre and for good reason. Adams artfully conveys a number of important ideas, chief among them that meat-eating is strongly interrelated to other forms of oppression.

As she puts it, "Meat eating is to animals what white racism is to people of color, anti-Semitism is to Jewish people, homophobia is to gay men and lesbians, and woman hating is to women. All are oppressed by a culture that does not want to assimilate them fully on their grounds and with rights."

Amen to that.

As a Jew, it is upsetting to me that most of my co-religionists do not see the obvious parallels between the oppression and exploitation of animals, which is inherent in meat-eating, and the oppression and exploitation of Jews throughout almost all of our history.

And although I'm a male, I'm disappointed that the feminist movement largely ignores the exploitation of female organs in the dairy and egg industries.

Adams gives voice to these concerns, particularly the latter one.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ? Dites-le-nous


Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?