Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

modestobulldog

Eating meat renforces toxic masculinity ...

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, modestobulldog said:

Eating meat and symbolism, I don't get it?

honestly?

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

BTW, she's not a professor, she's adjuncting around the Pacific Northwest. So EFF  this Waters asshole and the dipshits at Campus Reform and wherever else decided to send her his way for actively trying to undermine her career before it even started. 

Second, her research is not specifically about how meat reinforces gender roles. She's a sociologist of food, which is a branch of sociology that is not only one of the more robust in terms of scholarship, but is regularly among the most popular classes on college campuses because - shocking - food has lots of meanings to different people and different cultures beyond its function to keep you alive. Gender dynamics are one small part of that, and she probably had one section in her dissertation that discussed this among other analyses of her subject data, turned it into an article, and she's now the spokeswoman for "Meat is Misogyny!" 

Finally, her study area is Argentina. I'm sure there's no connection between masculinity and beef down there. Couldn't be. 

  HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CPslograd said:

That girl is fine.

She was so-so, but as she kept talking, she started to look pretty fvcking ugly. Imagine being married to that. Any time you wanted to do anything it would be like walking through a mine field. 

I'm big on animal rights, but she's crazy. Let's say she got her way and hunting was banned. I'd make her go out and watch the animals slowly starve to death because the herds weren't thinned. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

BTW, she's not a professor, she's adjuncting around the Pacific Northwest. So EFF  this Waters asshole and the dipshits at Campus Reform and wherever else decided to send her his way for actively trying to undermine her career before it even started. 

Second, her research is not specifically about how meat reinforces gender roles. She's a sociologist of food, which is a branch of sociology that is not only one of the more robust in terms of scholarship, but is regularly among the most popular classes on college campuses because - shocking - food has lots of meanings to different people and different cultures beyond its function to keep you alive. Gender dynamics are one small part of that, and she probably had one section in her dissertation that discussed this among other analyses of her subject data, turned it into an article, and she's now the spokeswoman for "Meat is Misogyny!" 

Finally, her study area is Argentina. I'm sure there's no connection between masculinity and beef down there. Couldn't be. 

With all due respect (sort of),.......What a bunch of absolutely worthless shit. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nevada Convert said:

What a bunch of worthless shit. 

care to expand? what is the worthless shit? that she's not a professor but is being introduced as one to fit a particular conservative narrative? that her research is not wholly focused on gender? that there is such a thing as sociology of food? That she studies Argentina? Which one of those, genius, is worthless shit?

One of these days you're going to have to actually defend your nonsense on here. Here's your chance for a gold star. Wow me.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

  HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Ironically, some of them do work on the value of the upland Idaho salmon you love so much. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

BTW, she's not a professor, she's adjuncting around the Pacific Northwest. So EFF  this Waters asshole and the dipshits at Campus Reform and wherever else decided to send her his way for actively trying to undermine her career before it even started. 

Second, her research is not specifically about how meat reinforces gender roles. She's a sociologist of food, which is a branch of sociology that is not only one of the more robust in terms of scholarship, but is regularly among the most popular classes on college campuses because - shocking - food has lots of meanings to different people and different cultures beyond its function to keep you alive. Gender dynamics are one small part of that, and she probably had one section in her dissertation that discussed this among other analyses of her subject data, turned it into an article, and she's now the spokeswoman for "Meat is Misogyny!" 

Finally, her study area is Argentina. I'm sure there's no connection between masculinity and beef down there. Couldn't be. 

Things like how east asian cultures pull portions off of the same plate on the table as opposed to a western style entree are sociological things ive read about.  The impact of rice farming as opposed to wheat or maize seem to effect how cultures develop.

Obviously diet and methods of subsistence effect gender roles.  But "meat" is so vague, as to be kind of worthless.  Are we talking buffalo, or domesticated pigs?

Sociology was fun, but its one of the softest of all the social sciences.  Lots of conjecture and hypothesizing without a lot of postulates.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2018 at 3:10 PM, modestobulldog said:

... I am trying to be vegan, but I am from Wisconsin.... I like cheese

Lambeau Leapin' Cheeseheads Freakin'....Go Pack Go! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SharkTanked said:

I didn't realize there was a strain of masculinity that wasn't toxic? :shrug:

I feel this way sometimes too. Lots of talking about "toxic masculinity", not a lot of differentiating it from just plain old masculinity. It isn't helping anything when you make that rhetorical choice. 

12 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

 

Finally, her study area is Argentina. I'm sure there's no connection between masculinity and beef down there. Couldn't be. 

Or here. I mean it isn't like the job that gets the beef isn't mythologized as a prime symbol of masculinity across the entire Western hemisphere or anything. 

12 hours ago, nomascows said:

Ironically, Argentinian steak is some of the best.

Hmm... maybe if it isn't cooked by an Argentine.

9 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

 

One of these days you're going to have to actually defend your nonsense on here. Here's your chance for a gold star. Wow me.

Empirically you are incorrect. 

7 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

Too bad their work has no value, the salmon deserve better.

Their work could show how potatoes and grains were socially valued more highly than an almost unique fishery despite the ubiquity of potato growing lands and the relative dearth of good salmon fisheries. I think you'd agree with those conclusions.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CPslograd said:

Things like how east asian cultures pull portions off of the same plate on the table as opposed to a western style entree are sociological things ive read about.  The impact of rice farming as opposed to wheat or maize seem to effect how cultures develop.

Obviously diet and methods of subsistence effect gender roles.  But "meat" is so vague, as to be kind of worthless.  Are we talking buffalo, or domesticated pigs?

Sociology was fun, but its one of the softest of all the social sciences.  Lots of conjecture and hypothesizing without a lot of postulates.

 

I'm going to keep this away from a defense of sociology in general, since I'm not a sociologist and I actually have problems with a lot of their methodologies. But I am just going to point out that every "argument" made thus far in this thread about how the field is somehow lacking in credibility also demonstrates a significant lack of knowledge about the field itself. Simple as that. Anyone want to talk to me about why sociology sucks, please read some sociology first. Then we can talk.

In terms of the vagueness of "meat," seems pretty clear that the conservative commentator intentionally kept it vague to make some sort of point, because the person interviewed specifically studies beef in Argentina. And as much as people sarcastically or not like to post face palms over the notion that beef does not carry symbolic meaning, people who honestly can't see or concede that are frankly morons and need to take back their college degrees. Happy put it perfectly - beef, and beef (cow) culture is a huge part of the mythology of the American West. And the same is true across the Western Hemisphere.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the beef industry, who puts out bumper stickers that say things like "EAT BEEF: THE WEST WASN'T WON WITH SALAD" (a statement which I would argue is false, btw) and who get people like Sam Elliott to voice their radio and television spots, which have Aaron Copeland's "Hoe Down" playing in the background. Why do they do that? Maybe because they're not just trying to sell you the product beef, they're selling you the cultural ideas associated with beef. It's almost as if "beef" carries symbolic meaning outside of the actual material itself. Couldn't be.

That doesn't mean it's unreasonable to take issue with the claim that eating a cheeseburger at In N Out means you are tacitly supporting rape. But the  people who are making that jump seem to be the people who have a concerted interest in de-legitimizing entire fields of study that they deem incompatible with their worldview. Which happens all over the place, don't get me wrong. But it's funny that those same people like to rail against the postmodern claptrap that is taking over the university and attempting to undermine the "real" fields of study that they deem to be commiserate with their worldviews. 

Edit: And even within its vagueness, "meat" is an idea that itself carries symbolic meaning related to gender. Don't believe me? What if I was telling you and a group of your friends about a guy I know who was about to join up with us? And what if I checked the menu to make sure they had a veggie option on the menu because the guy is a vegetarian? Even worse, a vegan? You're a liar if you say you wouldn't immediately make assumptions about who this guy is, what he is like, how he acts and what he believes when hearing that. It's OK, I would too. But even something as vague as "meat" carries symbolic cultural meaning. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

I'm going to keep this away from a defense of sociology in general, since I'm not a sociologist and I actually have problems with a lot of their methodologies. But I am just going to point out that every "argument" made thus far in this thread about how the field is somehow lacking in credibility also demonstrates a significant lack of knowledge about the field itself. Simple as that. Anyone want to talk to me about why sociology sucks, please read some sociology first. Then we can talk.

In terms of the vagueness of "meat," seems pretty clear that the conservative commentator intentionally kept it vague to make some sort of point, because the person interviewed specifically studies beef in Argentina. And as much as people sarcastically or not like to post face palms over the notion that beef does not carry symbolic meaning, people who honestly can't see or concede that are frankly morons and need to take back their college degrees. Happy put it perfectly - beef, and beef (cow) culture is a huge part of the mythology of the American West. And the same is true across the Western Hemisphere.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the beef industry, who puts out bumper stickers that say things like "EAT BEEF: THE WEST WASN'T WON WITH SALAD" (a statement which I would argue is false, btw) and who get people like Sam Elliott to voice their radio and television spots, which have Aaron Copeland's "Hoe Down" playing in the background. Why do they do that? Maybe because they're not just trying to sell you the product beef, they're selling you the cultural ideas associated with beef. It's almost as if "beef" carries symbolic meaning outside of the actual material itself. Couldn't be.

That doesn't mean it's unreasonable to take issue with the claim that eating a cheeseburger at In N Out means you are tacitly supporting rape. But the  people who are making that jump seem to be the people who have a concerted interest in de-legitimizing entire fields of study that they deem incompatible with their worldview. Which happens all over the place, don't get me wrong. But it's funny that those same people like to rail against the postmodern claptrap that is taking over the university and attempting to undermine the "real" fields of study that they deem to be commiserate with their worldviews. 

Edit: And even within its vagueness, "meat" is an idea that itself carries symbolic meaning related to gender. Don't believe me? What if I was telling you and a group of your friends about a guy I know who was about to join up with us? And what if I checked the menu to make sure they had a veggie option on the menu because the guy is a vegetarian? Even worse, a vegan? You're a liar if you say you wouldn't immediately make assumptions about who this guy is, what he is like, how he acts and what he believes when hearing that. It's OK, I would too. But even something as vague as "meat" carries symbolic cultural meaning. 

symboli

oh, FFS, lighten up Francis.

yes, vegetarianism is girly, WE AGREE!  Yes, fast food advertising targets men, remember that jack in the box commercial joking about that?

the problem with sociology is they will make theories like Asian cultures are more collectivist than western ones because of the infrastructure required for rice farming.  I remember reading that thinking that makes a lot of sense.  The only problem with that theory is that in huge swaths of China the primary historical staple crop is wheat, not rice.  You get lots of things like that in sociology.

and yes, meat is vqgue as hell.  When companies market chicken wraps they are typically targeting women.

not sure why you are so militantly defensive of this broad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

oh, FFS, lighten up Francis.

yes, vegetarianism is girly, WE AGREE!  Yes, fast food advertising targets men, remember that jack in the box commercial joking about that?

the problem with sociology is they will make theories like Asian cultures are more collectivist than western ones because of the infrastructure required for rice farming.  I remember reading that thinking that makes a lot of sense.  The only problem with that theory is that in huge swaths of China the primary historical staple crop is wheat, not rice.  You get lots of things like that in sociology.

and yes, meat is vqgue as hell.  When companies market chicken wraps they are typically targeting women.

not sure why you are so militantly defensive of this broad.

Being annoyed at regular mischaracterizations such as the one above about the nature of sociology is not the same thing as defending this broad. I don't care much about this broad other than to point out that she's not a tenured professor, which is what groups like Campus Reform and Turning Point USA want you to think. And I'm sure she's a nice person and is probably pretty smart. 

Beyond that, it appears we agree. I'm not sure why it chaps your ass to consider the fact that some things mean other things, too. But it is what it is. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, happycamper said:

Their work could show how potatoes and grains were socially valued more highly than an almost unique fishery despite the ubiquity of potato growing lands and the relative dearth of good salmon fisheries. I think you'd agree with those conclusions.

There work if honest and scientific would show that farming for vegetarians and plant eaters has done much more damage to fauna like Salmon than native animals have ever done in reverse.

If she was basing her opinions on science and defensible research the conclusion would be vegetarians are toxic to animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...