An Australian butcher displayed a (real life) nude woman in his butcher case among cuts of meats, with lines drawn on her body to indicate actual cuts of mean (thigh, breast, etc.); a marketing ploy that was posted on the rural Australian town’s Facebook page.
It was all done for a shot that was conceptualized by photographer Kym Illman, and the butcher shop owner, Darren Gerrand. Illman called the photo a “great social experiment to see how people would react”. And react they did.
Some commentators aggressively called out the image and the Facebook page for posting it, while others made comments that wouldn’t surprise you: “Now that’s my sort of meat” and “I’ll take the breasts and thighs please”.
You guys, we’re so tired.
We don’t think we have to tell you why this is obscene, insulting, and degrading. So we’ll let Carol J. Adams, feminist theorist and author of The Sexual Politics of Meat tell you:
“We live in a world in which women are animalized and animals are sexualized and feminized, so when a butcher does this, he’s not creating something new; he is just participating in an oppressive framework that’s been around for quite a while… In the sexual politics of meat, it comes down to three things: objectification, fragmentation, and consumption. Animals are literally consumed and women are visually consumed, and this butcher thing could be exhibit number one for that claim.”
Amen. Preach. And yes.
Also, we also call BS on Illman’s claim of a “great social experiment”. The better experiment would have been what conversation is sparked when real animals are placed in the butcher case, so we come to terms with what we eat and where it comes from? Or, dare we say it, what happens when a man’s body is displayed in that form? Could men take being seen as nothing more than just a flank?
This picture is not art. It’s not a conversation starter. It’s just another boring (and infuriating) statement by another boring (and infuriating) man commenting on women’s bodies.