I may be going out on a limb here, but I notice the meat is not only red meat, but beef, something seen as a masculine food. Also, large knives, one sticking out from the back of the meat, and one being held by a silhouette with no feminine features, so one may assume this is a ‘male’ chef cutting the meat.

Gendered Foods- “men, athletes and soldiers in particular, are associated with red meat and activity (“To have muscle you need to eat muscle”), whereas women are associated with vegetables and passivity (“ladies’ luncheons” typically offer dainty sandwiches with no red meat) (Curtin).” A couple examples that come to mind are that of steak, beef, red meats mainly for more of a ‘masculine’ feel. On the other coin of the gendered food discussion, things like salad, chicken and light meat as well as lighter food such as the quote suggests, a sandwich or wrap, are seen as more ‘feminine’ food items.

Gaard- I found this article very interesting in that Gaard is talking about how speciesism is similar to slavery, in that if we view these animals as dependent on us for basic needs, we are essentially enslaving them to be in our control. While that makes sense, I can tell that there are two sides of that argument. One, saying that yes animals have souls and hearts and are alive, but that due to us being more intelligent and advanced, it’s simply us being different. Though, I also see the argument that this is similar to arguing that animals being known as pets can be compared to slavery. It reminds me a bit of the subject of BDSM, and how the argument there is on if this is glorifying abuse, or if it should be accepted as something people do consensually behind closed doors. In BDSM, the ‘submissive’ is called names such as a ‘pet’, ’slave’, ’sub’, etc. The ‘dominant’ is known as the ‘Master’. We consider ourselves the ‘masters’ of our pets, so, I feel like these all walk a fine line that interconnect with one another, and it’s definitely a new and interesting thing to mull over in our heads.

Curtin-

“The point of a contextualist ethic is that one need not treat all interests equally as if one had no relationship to any of the parties (Curtin).” Curtin expresses how if they needed to kill for food to provide a longer life for their children and family they would. On that same line of thinking, there are cultures whom do not have the luxury of choosing an omnivorous diet over vegetarianism. In this instance, those must kill animals to survive for food, so, is this seen as morally wrong? I definitely agree that the factories and meat facilities we see today are terrible and cruel, and how we as a society take for granted where we get our food. We are careless, and cruel to the point that we are not eating because we have to survive, but simply because it’s delivered to us on a silver platter, and we have the OPTION. I think it is drastically different for us, than it is for someone in another country or culture who must get what they can get in order to live another day.