How have the debates changed over the years concerning meat and vegetarian diets? Do you see resonances among the texts? How has the "merry war" described in the NYTimes 1907 article escalated or cooled? How do new genres and modes play a part in the changes?
The debates have seemed to shift in some ways, the vegetarian and vegan lifestyles have become more concerned with animal welfare than they once were, or so it seems. I think in many ways though it is still very patriarchal and meat eating is geared towards men. It seems that most meat advertisements are more for men to take a liking to than women. The Hungry Man website would be appealing to a sport loving, hard working, maybe even dare I say hillbilly man! The product is called hungry man, so I suppose in the eyes of hungry man women don't get hungry. Looking at this website and then hearing the song on the mp3 player very much rang a bell and brought up a point I have never truley come across before. Meat has a strong correlation with patriarchy. I also thought the Alicia Silverstone commercial was humorous, trying to make vegan eating sexy, sex sells as most advertisements will show, however trying to show people that being vegan is sexy and showing a naked woman seems to be just as horrible as the hungry man website. It seems that everything comes down to gender and sex appeal. Even in the 1907 article brought up the man and woman comparison.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I can say the debates have changed much as The New York Times article points out in its name calling the vegan lifestyle "queer" and still today vegetarianism is seen as more feminist shown in the peta video. This shows that meat is still thought of being masculine and the Hungry Man web site shows this extreme of drawing men into hefty meals with the weight of the meal on the box. I do think this is a more effective tactic in getting men to eat their meals whereas the peta video which just appeals to sexuality.
ReplyDeleteI think the debate hasn’t changed a lot since the 1907 article. In the pieces we read, saw and heard for today, they attempted to play on current fears, assumptions, and popular culture. The feminist audio track plays on a fear that women may lose what gains have been made in women’s rights over the last one hundred years, by eating meat. It implies that women who eat meat are simply falling into line with patriarchal thinking and are accepting the thought process that men are superior. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Alicia Silverstone video implies that being a vegetarian makes you feel better, look better and may even make you feel sexy enough to swim naked in front of strangers. If that’s not a selling point, I don’t know what is.
ReplyDeleteThe pamphlet, on the other hand, tries to play into fears of global warming. Did you know that because you eat so much meat that you’re adding to the problem? While they argue that eating meat is a major cause of Global warming they leave out the millions of miles that most people drive in their cars over a life time and other major contribution, besides meat manufacturing.
The Hungry Man site seems to play on the macho man image. If you’re really a man, then you’ll eat a full pound of food, because anything less than a pound would leave you full. The center piece for the meal is also some form of meat, because “real men” only eat meat. The 1908 article mentions multiple times “Fletcherizing” your food, which was a reference to the current belief that food should be chewed at least 32 times before swallowing it. I think they all seem to play on trends and emotions to convince people of their views.
I see the vegetarians in the NTY article as trying to emulate animals to promote a natural life style. The PETA videos have shifted towards protecting the animals and putting them before what many consider basic human needs. I'll have to say I'm not a fan of PETA or their activism and I would happily eat a steak to spite them.
ReplyDeleteThe hungry man site doesn't really have much but pictures of a few entrees and the games are really the only part of the site I find partially worthwhile but after visiting the games section, nothing seems to even work. The labels and titles are definitely geared towards men. "It's Good to be Full" "With little effort" are a few titles that stood out.
Although the debates haven't necessarily changed much over time, the way in which they are delivered has. The technology has changed drastically from just being available in as text (in periodicals,) to full color pamphlets to songs, to television ads to interactive websites. The way in which the audience is targeted has changed also. The first, being the NY Times article, this article seems to be just as extreme as the newer ads, however the context is different. It was hard for me to relate to it. The PETA pamphlet was pretty disturbing to me. It used images to get the point across. My first impression of the song was its annoying sound, it wouldn't classify as music to me. Also it was hard to understand what she was saying, which hindered its effectiveness. I related to the Alicia Silverstone ad in a way because I actually knew who she is, although the way she was portrayed doesn't relate to most women. The hungry man website 'sold' meat on the homepage but when going into the games links I wouldn't know I was on the hungry man website.
ReplyDeleteAll in all it seems that the genre and modes have changed over time, because of technology and what people expect at the times. The content of the texts have changed as well pertaining to the context of the times.
I think time has definitely added more information to the meat vs. vegetarian debate. However, I have to agree that a lot of the articles feel like a sales pitch and they still seem to be based out of a "villanify" the other side arguement. Then again, that is the essence of modern day debate.
ReplyDeleteI think that this article definitely are more fun than the last one, and the topic become more acceptance than the last article. Because this one actually have a place for them to go and order nothing but veges. This guy is trying to defend and also in the same time pushing for the idea for everyone to go vegetarian. To a point that "vegetarian do not clean their teeth", like what are you thinking buddy are you out of your mind....we're not animals!! The part about "cooked food is only fit for degenerates; the healthy, moral man never touches such food" thats how he review the world of being MAN.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree that times have not made a significant change in this debate. Meat eating is still seen as extremely manly, and vegetarianism as a little iffy. I think that society is making a slow change towards large-scale acceptance of vegetarianism, but it still has a long way to go.
ReplyDeleteI believe that, eventually, vegetarianism and such will become just as much the norm as meat eating. Not to say that meat eating will go away in its prevalence, just that I think they will both end up on the same plane.