Based on this weeks readings, to me the knife in the meat represents the overall consumption of nonhuman animals from a diet and economic perspective. Food is a huge profit driver of the economy, and food labor and profits propel the economy. The human driving the knife represents the role in which humans play in this cycle, as overseers of food farms, autonomous in our diet decision making, and the oppressors of nonhuman animals.

One gendered food is meat. In our reading’s themes explored are: the relationship between meat and masculinity. The Huffington Post article cites studies done in 2011 and 2012 where perceptions of men’s diet in relation to meat consumption our vegetarianism/veganism are studied. In the study the article found that, “Participants from a 2012 study published in the Journal of Consumer Research rated men who ate meat as more masculine than meat-free men, and a 2011 study from Appetite journal found that vegetarian men were still viewed as manly, but vegan men were seen as effeminate,” this study is consistent with both Curtin and Gaard who offer similar findings of the relationship between men and meat which is reinforced culturally (Eisenberg 2016). Curtin provides evidence in the form of verbiage likening women to meat, here we see women as something to be consumed and dehumanized. In contrast there is the analysis of the consumption of vegetables and salads, in specific how these foods are marketed using women and for women’s consumption. Women’s physical appearances are subject to scrutiny, commodification, and objectification in misogynistic societies, to reinforce negative stereotypes about women’s bodies the idea of the ideal diet for women is one with smaller portions and greens. In conclusion, the gendering of food limits humans in their gender capacities as well as contributing to harmful antiquated stereotypes made about women and men. As we learn more about alternative diet choices, health and sustainability should be prioritized rather than ego.

“In advocating for a contextual moral vegetarianism, feminists who act in solidarity with other animal species achieve not a moral destination, but a moral direction: we can take significant actions that move us in the direction of reducing suffering,” is a direct quote from Greta Gaard which does a good job at explaining contextual moral vegetarianism. In our relationships with nonhuman animals both Curtin and Gaard are aware of humans standing as oppressors in the relationship. Curtin goes into detail of what it means to be a contextual moral vegetarian. That is to say context is important in regards to our consumption of nonhuman animals, environment, class, and culture all play a role in ones choices to consume flesh. For instance the example of The Ihalmiut, whose environment doesn’t allow for the growth and cultivation of crops for consumption, or the massive food farms that exist in countries for the specific purpose to utilize other’s resources and labors to the end of exporting goods back to western countries. Curtin emphasizes that the choice situates itself as distinct of the belief that all sentient beings have rights to their life and instead employs an ethic of care. An ethic that acknowledges that multiple contexts must be considered in regards to animal consumption, but we are autonomous beings that can and should exercise an ethic of care. Here we can transition to Gaard’s focus on the relationship of humans and pets. Gaard emphasizes the interconnectedness of all beings, urging a perspective that recognizes the shared experiences of oppression and exploitation among women, marginalized groups, and nonhuman animals. She critiques traditional human-centric views that place humans at the top of the hierarchy and see nonhumans as subordinate or merely resources for human use. She advocates for a more inclusive and empathetic perspective, acknowledging that nonhuman animals have their own agency and value. She sees nonhuman animals as beings with their own intrinsic worth and rights, deserving of respect and ethical consideration. Overall, Gaard promotes an ethics of care, advocating for a shift in how humans relate to animals and emphasizes empathy. To come back to the starting quote both authors acknowledge the contextual significance of human and nonhuman animal relationships, however they task us with a care ethic and the responsibility of taking this context into our own hands while regarding nonhuman animals as beings deserving of empathy and respect.