Beyond the Plate: When Advertising Crosses the Line of Decency

Advertising is a pervasive force in our society, and it has the power to influence our beliefs, values, and behaviors. While advertising can be an effective means of promoting products and services, it can also cross the line of decency by exploiting or harming individuals or groups. Unfortunately, marketing fails to consider the ethical implications of advertising and its impact on society, particularly in terms of perpetuating harmful stereotypes, objectifying and sexualizing women and animals, and promoting the consumption of animal products without regard for their welfare.

The billboard featuring the popular slogan “Pork: The other white meat” is a prime example of the kind of messaging that Carol Adams argues contributes to the “war on compassion” towards animals in industrial societies. In her article, The War on Compassion, Adams highlights that “the ‘massification’ of beings is a contributing factor to this phenomenon” (14). As she notes in her book The Sexual Politics of Meat, “mass terms are linked to subjects being diminished [and] in their diminishment, all that is left for them is to become metaphors for others” (Adams 6), allowing for a dilution of our attention and compassion. The advertisement’s focus on the color of pork meat rather than the animal it originated from, reinforces the idea that animals are mere commodities to be consumed without any regard for their emotional or physical wellbeing. This mentality allows for the acceptance of the animals’ suffering, which is necessary for our consumption, and their emotional lives to be ignored.

Moreover, the phrase “the other white meat” used in the ad attempts to rebrand pork as a healthier, leaner alternative to other meats, while conveniently ignoring the negative impacts of industrial animal agriculture on animals and the environment. Marketing campaigns for meat products frequently stress the health benefits of meat consumption, while ignoring the negative environmental and ethical impacts of industrial animal agriculture.

Furthermore, the use of the word “other” in the ad implies that pork is somehow separate from or not as important as other meats, which reinforces the idea and message that “humans use their intelligence, nonhumans are instinctive; humans love, nonhumans mate; humans cultivate friendships, nonhumans have ‘affliative behavior’; humans are humane, cultivated, refined, nonhumans are beasts, brutal” (Dunayer as cited in Adams 2010).

The ad above is an example of the kind of cultural messaging that “contains all that we imagine to be good and powerful on the side of white males”(Kemmerer ). The phrase “man up” used in the ad reinforces the harmful notion that to be a “real man,” one must consume meat and animal products, despite the negative impacts on animals and the environment.

The advertisement reinforces the cultural stereotype that meat consumption is crucial for a robust, manly identity, which further perpetuates this notion. It portrays a man devouring a burger loaded with twice the amount of bacon, further solidifying the belief that animals are merely objects to be consumed, without any consideration for their welfare or emotional experiences. The agricultural industry treats animals as machines, solely producing meat, milk, and eggs for human consumption, disregarding their emotional lives and accepting their physical and psychological pain as necessary. Furthermore, it perpetuates the “war on compassion” towards animals and reinforces harmful cultural stereotypes around meat consumption and masculinity, as outlined by Carol Adams in her article.

Of all the images Adams includes in her book, the ad of a woman in perhaps the most vulnerable position known to mankind, really struck me as the most disrespectful to life, both human and non-human. This ad is a prime example of the way in which the meat industry crosses the line of decency in fostering the objectification and dehumanization of women and animals as a means of promoting the consumption of meat and to sell products.

The advertisement uses a disturbing image of a newborn baby being substituted for a hamburger to convey that food is as essential as a child. The image also presents a disturbing portrayal of women as being mere “consumables,” whose primary purpose is to bear and nurture food for men. As Carol Adams aptly puts it, “Meat is like pornography: before it was someone’s fun, it was someone’s life” (Kemmerer, 1).

The ad further promotes the harmful idea that women’s worth is tied to their ability to satisfy male desires. By portraying the mother’s role as that of a machine that produces offspring, like the mass-producing machines in meat factories, the ad implies that women are merely instruments to serve the needs of others, rather than individuals with their own unique identities.

These harmful gender stereotypes dehumanize women, reducing them to objects to be consumed and perpetuating the troubling view of womanhood presented in the image. The portrayal of women as machines that produce offspring suggests that their bodies exist solely for the purpose of bearing children, reinforcing the idea that they are sexual objects for male pleasure and consumption.

The advertisement is a striking example of how advertisers use subliminal messaging to sell their products by tapping into deep-seated cultural beliefs and stereotypes about women and reinforcing them through provocative imagery.

These depictions perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and dehumanize women, reducing them to mere objects rather than full human beings with complex identities and experiences. Such imagery has no place in a society that values gender equality and human dignity.

Domination and sexualization go hand in hand, and this image can be interpreted as a representation of male domination over both women and non-human animals. One way in which this domination is depicted is through the portrayal of the man as physically strong and dominant, and the chicken as a passive and submissive being.

Looking closely at the image, it is clear to see that the positioning of the chicken with its bottom lifted off the board and seemingly aligned with the man’s pelvis, adds an additional layer of sexualization and objectification to the scene. This kind of objectification reduces both women and animals to mere objects for male pleasure or convenience, perpetuating harmful gender and species stereotypes that contribute to the domination of certain groups by others.

Additionally, the act of bondage in the image alters the balance of power and can be used as a tool of control. The man’s hand gripping the twine and the tight jerking motion could be interpreted as a demonstration of his control over the chicken.

 

These two images can contribute to the perception that it is acceptable for men to exert control and power over others and that “animals are inherently passive objects whose only role in life is to serve the human enterprise” (Karen Davis as cited in Adams, 2010).

The objectification of animals in images often fails to acknowledge their inherent value and dignity. Instead, they are portrayed as mere objects for human use, reinforcing the idea that animals are not sentient beings with their own interests and agency. This kind of objectification extends beyond animals and can also be applied to women, who may be similarly treated as objects for male pleasure or conveniences.

It is important to note that the absence of women in certain objectifying images involving animals can lead to people ignoring the harmful gender stereotypes being perpetuated, as some may believe that “because women are not being depicted, no one is seen as being harmed and so no one has to be accountable. Everyone can enjoy the degradation of women without being honest about it” (Adams as cited in Kemmerer, 2003). Here, Adams underscores the danger of objectifying images and messages that contribute to the domination of certain groups by others. The video below is an example of Adams’ theory.

The video below is another example of the degradation of women and sexualization of non-human animals for profit. The trailer is for a cookbook parody of the Fifty Shades of Grey book series by E. L. James.

It is crucial to challenge and reject these kinds of objectifying images and messages to ensure that all living beings, both human and non-human, are treated with respect and dignity. By recognizing the inherent value and agency of animals and women, we can promote a society that values the autonomy and welfare of all living beings.

Works Cited:

Adams, Carol J. “Examples of the Sexual Politics of Meat.” Carol J. Adams, 2018, https://caroljadams.com/examples-of-spom/.

Kemmerer, Lisa. “The Pornography of Meat by Carol Adams.” Philosophy Now, 2006, https://philosophynow.org/issues/56/The_Pornography_of_Meat_by_Carol_Adams.

Potts, Annie, and Carol J. Adams. “The Politics of Carol J. Adams.” Antennae, no. 14, 2010, pp. 12–24., https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54792ff7e4b0674c74cb719d/t/55dc8dace4b0ad76d7277cb7/1440517548517/ANTENNAE+ISSUE+14.pdf. Accessed 3  Mar. 2023.