Rating: 
Summary: Pseudo-intellectual balderdash
Review: I will not elevate this book to the status of a legitimate work of intellectual inquiry by writing a detailed critique of it. Suffice it to say that the author, rather than citing objective evidence in support of her conclusions, does nothing except make baldly conclusory statements which conform to her ultra-feminist world view. If Ms. Adams wishes to be a vegetarian feminist, that's her business. But until she can come up with objective evidence that her hypothesis is true, she comes across as nothing but a rambling mad-woman. Using the conclusory technique employed by Ms. Adams, I could easily write an equally legitimate book claiming that vegetarianism causes oppression of men worldwide. Any publishers out there interested?
Rating:
Summary: Complete waste of money.
Review: If it were possible, I would give a negative star rating for this book. To sum it all up in one sentence, Carol (an extreme left-wing animal rights/environmentalist/Feminazi propagandist and a New Age crystal-squeezer to boot) actually claims that eating meat is equivalent and related to abusing women! I can just see the eco-cops outside my kitchen window with guns drawn "SIR, PLEASE STEP AWAY FROM THE CHEESEBURGER!!". Never once in her book does she consider the obvious fact that meat has always been a normal part of the human diet in the vast majority of cultures, and that maybe, just maybe, people (including women) eat meat simply because it tastes good. But then it's typical for the more extreme feminists to be so out of touch with reality that they see nefarious male-oriented political motivations in even the most innocent of human behavior.
Rating:
Summary: Complete waste of money.
Review: If it were possible, I would give a negative star rating for this book. To sum it all up in one sentence, Carol (an extreme left-wing animal rights/environmentalist/Feminazi propagandist and a New Age crystal-squeezer to boot) actually claims that eating meat is equivalent and related to abusing women! I can just see the eco-cops outside my kitchen window with guns drawn "SIR, PLEASE STEP AWAY FROM THE CHEESEBURGER!!". Never once in her book does she consider the obvious fact that meat has always been a normal part of the human diet in the vast majority of cultures, and that maybe, just maybe, people (including women) eat meat simply because it tastes good. But then it's typical for the more extreme feminists to be so out of touch with reality that they see nefarious male-oriented political motivations in even the most innocent of human behavior.
Rating: 
Summary: Adams' convictions get in the way of her arguments
Review: 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?
Rating:
Summary: Adams' convictions get in the way of her arguments
Review: 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?
Rating:
Summary: Unintentionally hilarious
Review: This book is interesting chiefly as an extreme example of a rhetorical style that is altogether too much with us. It will either annoy or amuse you, depending on your taste for irony.
There may in fact be some deep relationship between carnivory and maleness, or vegetarianism and femaleness. Those who wonder why would probably find more pertinent data in the realm of evolutionary anthropology, rather than in stilted and implausible over-interpretations of advertising and other pop culture ephemera.
You will marvel at the author's faith in the magical power of words and pictures: by changing them, we can change the world. Believe this, and all social and politcal action can be carried out safely from within the ivory tower.
Both rigorous and eccentric diets born of body-image problems, and a sort of maudlin sentimentality our great-grandmothers would have had no leisure for, are much too close to the stereotypical notions of conventional femininity. In her zeal to denounce patriarchy and carnivory, this author seems to have embraced them.
Still, it's an interestingly over-the-top example of this type of rhetorical style, and as such has some entertainment value despite itself.
Rating: 
Summary: Adams Gives Gives Voice to Historical Vegetarian Authors
Review: Too long has vegetarian history been wrongfully called modern or faddish; Adams addresses this and explains how the messages of vegetarian authors have been muted, leading to these misconceptions. This book is a great help in giving historical examples of vegetarian authors (though mostly modern female writers) as well as how the writers assembled the messages in the texts. The first part of this book focuses on definitions and historical overviews of the treatment of animals and women. The second part gets to the literary examples, author techniques, and audience trivialization and/or dismissal of vegetarian messages. Now, when I read or hear someone discussing vegetarian authors such as Wells, Plato, Shelley, Shaw, etc., I will always have a historical and psychological awareness of how both their contemporaries and mine never had or will never have the entire messages acknowledged. I would especially recommend this book to any vegetarian and encourage him/her to read as many books by historical vegetarians as possble.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Read
Review: Within the contexts of feminism, racism, speciesism, classism, and vegetarianism, the author lucidly demonstrates how our culture and language define and reinforce a political paradigm that supports marginalization and consumption. She does an excellent job exposing the hypocrisy and denial so prevalent in contemporary society.
|
