Things People say that they Think make them Sound Smart

The convergance of rushed, low quality blogging and academia continues.

Informed by feminist investigations of embodiment and bodiliness, we ask: How do we understand our bodily relationship to other animals? How do we embody animals, and how do animals embody us? How are carnal modes of incorporation, intimacy, and inhabitation kinds of contacts forged between “HumAnimals”?

Given the title “Meet Animal Meat”, and otherwise being cute with a few opinionated phrases, now counts for dialectics in Graduate level Sweden.

What, or more precisely, who, we eat is determined by the patriarchal politics of our culture. Patriarchy is a gender system that is implicit in human/animal relationships… Manhood is constructed in our culture by access to meat eating and control of other bodies.

Clearly, someone needs to get stupped. The inference that cannibalism is supposed to be soundly based on the blanket acceptance of the humanity of all other animals, regardless of whether or not a dog is a dog, in this desiccated idiot’s world, the dog can also be human, whereas a human (male or female, even though she seems to be trying to stake one’s humanity on being female) , may still only be a human.

Anyone paying tuition to engage ideas that this “pedagogue” is not so much offering but promoting is a fool. It isn’t scholarship when it’s simplistic enough to be cogently summarized on a matchbook cover. I would also suspect that there isn’t much interaction in any realistic way in the study of HuManImal Studies either, at least any which would require a defense of the founding assumptions about non-maleness somehow being connected to non-humanness, except when all animals can be associated with humans.

Sure makes sense, doesn’t it? All animals are to be treated as sentient, but males are to be demoted, and there is supposed to be something ‘inherent’ enough in that to make it a subject of what remains of the dignity academic philosophical inquiry has to offer.

The cheap thing to say at this stage is that all of this “scholarship” is either out of fear or response to a mere aphorism: man meat.