A deer's retribution?

Whenever I read an article about deers or just look at them, I get the image of a driver running over a deer. I wonder why it's so common for deers to be hit by cars? I've never experienced this in real life because I never traveled to the east coast, so I wouldn't know.

Car vs Deer
This interesting article informs that a deer and a police trooper died from an accident but may have been avoided. In the deer's perspective, the human ruthlessly murdered the deer while the deer was unaware. In the possible human's perspective, the deer jumped out of nowhere and didn't care to die? Either way, both died and by thinking about this as a deer's retribution, I mockingly laughed.

Treating Pets as Children

I saw this picture on Facebook and thought about our talk on anthropomorphism and how some humans treat their pets as children.

comparing

It's interesting to see the differences and similarities between "The Tiger's Bride," and "Wolf-Alice." While in the Tiger's Bride, the protagonist starts off human and eventually turns into a tigress after developing sympathy for the Beast, Wolf-Alice is the opposite, as she starts off as an animalistic wolf, and then slowly turns much more human (though not fully there). It is therefore interesting to note how Angela Carter might feel about animals and their relationship with humans, as though in these stories they have reverse transformations, both seem to be out of kindness for the Duke and the Beast.

Animals. (Sundance 2015)

Anthropomorphism at its finest.

"An animated comedy series from co-creators Phil Matarese & Mike Luciano and produced by the Duplass Brothers, ANIMALS. focuses on the downtrodden creatures native to planet Earth's least habitable environment: New York City. Whether it's lovelorn rats, gender-questioning pigeons or aging bed bugs steeped in midlife crisis, the existential woes of non-human urbanites prove startlingly to our own."

Video Link / Show Link

Do Vegetarians Cause Greater Bloodshed?

I recently came across an article detailing a response by Adriano Mannino to another essay entitled "Do Vegetarians Cause Greater Bloodshed" by Olschewski, which apparently has been embraced by non-vegetarians as supporting the morality of eating meat. The Mannino argues that the original paper has been miscast due to the Olschewski's poor word choice. He argues that in fact, Olschewski overwhelmingly agrees with the vegetarian crowd while suggesting some reforms that can be made. What do you all think about both the original article and Mannino's take on it?

It is interesting to see stories from our childhood such as Little Red Riding Hood, be interpreted through different, more scholarly texts. I think it gives these stories more depth, and allows the readings to be more enjoyable as they are somewhat familiar.

More On Pet Keeping

After our thorough talk during section last night about anthropomorphism and pet keeping, I was interested in other thoughts/arguments on this topic. I found an article on PETA's view on pet keeping and thought their argument had some very good points.

 http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/

Queer Kinship

Alright y'all, I was watching a clip from one of my favorite movies, Paris is Burning, and thought it would be worth sharing as one last example of different kinds of kinship -- basically what's often referred to as a "queer kinship" -- kinship based more on families-of-choice rather than families-of-origin.

One more way of rethinking familial structures (and a lot of it sounds in line with stuff you already threw out while we were concept-mapping) -- though the Levi-Strauss is important in order to understand what future iterations of "kinship" take issue with and try to reshape.

Hope it's useful to some of you!

K

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/court-hearing-nyc-whether-chimps-rights-045157112.html#JKKiwhk

Interesting arguments on both sides.

A Bit Too Friendly, Maybe?

When I was in class today (specifically in Classroom Unit 2, which I'm sure we all have the common understanding of its enormity), I noticed that a little bird had walked in doors and was prancing about the carpeted stairs. I want to say that a normal bird would avoid such close a proximity to humans, but I feel as if I haven't witnessed a "normal" bird in a very long time. Specifically the little birds, I believe them to be called sparrows.

I remember when I was younger, I always wanted to keep a sparrow as a pet because they were so cute and friendly. It makes me wonder, have they always been this way? Or have they evolved in a way that is strictly adapted to be around humans. Is it a matter of "survival of the fittest," where they realize that if they're around humans, their cute exterior will surely allow them to be fed?

Speaking of animals that are used to being around humans, what do you think about the animals of UCSC? The deer, raccoons, squirrels, etc? They're all so used to our presence within their forest home, rarely do they blink an eye when one of us approaches them, or offers them food. I remember last year, a family of raccoons used to sneak into my friend's room in Kresge, where he used to leave is sliding glass door open.

Is such domestic behavior an evolutionary benefit for these wild animals? Am I right when I refer to them as wild? If they were actually in the wild, I feel like their experienced counterparts would outlive them within a matter of weeks.

Rabbit Killed On Air

I was reading some articles about animals and I came across this more recent one about a rabbit that was killed on air to prove a point. I believe that this Denmark radio station took it a little bit too far. Somehow, an action like this is similar to one of the ALF missions. When many/almost all of the protests did not hurt anyone or anything, there was that one mission that started a fire. The Denmark radio station took it a little two far, but the article gives valid reason on why they did it. It's sacrifice one for many. Rabbit Killed

How to Avoid Animal Tested Products

I found the documentary we listened to in class to be extremely powerful and really made me consider the ethics of animals testing. I do not think I will ever find myself a part of the Animal Liberation Front, however, I definitely think I can do my part to dissuade companies from using animal testing by picking products that are cruelty-free when given the option. Some things, such as medicines if I am sick I will take regardless of if they have been tested on animals, but it is so easy to change your choice of shampoo and conditioner, it just seems like a no-brainer. I was wondering if anyone else had tips for avoiding animal tested products when possible?

Here are a few resources if anyone else is interested in switching out their products for companies that are cruelty free:

http://features.peta.org/cruelty-free-company-search/index.aspx

http://www.peta.org.uk/living/easy-way-go-cruelty-free/

http://kb.rspca.org.au/How-can-I-reduce-or-avoid-animal-testing_56.html

Behind The Mask

After viewing the documentary, Behind The Mask, in lecture on Wednesday I became more aware of what really occurs in laboratories, farms, etc. Many people, including myself, are naive to what goes on behind the closed doors of these facilities. Even though I was unprepared for the gruesome images presented throughout the film, I thought it was necessary to be exposed to them. The images provided an understanding of the torture many animals go through on a daily basis. I have a great amount of respect for Animal Rights Activists and hope that one day animals will receive the rights they deserve.

Earthlings

I just remembered I saw this documentary a few months ago and it correlates to animals. It's extremely graphic and sheds light on how animals are used in our current society.

For more information, this is the plot summary from the Wikipedia page:
"Covering pet stores, puppy mills, and animal profession, Earthlings includes footage obtained through the use of hidden cameras to chronicle the day-to-day practices of some of the largest industries in the world, all of which rely on animals. It draws parallels between racism, sexism, and speciesism." (source)

When Animals are Sick

When humans are sick, we tend to be able to "call in," being able to take a step away from our usual day-to-day tasks of school, work, club activities, etc. Animals have much more life-threatening day-to-day lives, so it is therefore interesting to note what they do, and how they behave when they are ill.

I do not agree with everything that was said in "Behind the mask" simply because i do not think we are viewing everything that is happening in industries by stealth.

Respecting Wildlife: Human and Wild Animal Interaction

I was reading the news and came across this story about a tourist who was gored by a bison in Yellowstone National Park (link 1). It is revealed that the girl was standing a mere three to six feet from the animal, posing for a photo. It occurred to me that this situation was not an exception to the rule. From approaching too close to wildlife (link 2 , link 3 , link 4), to poking and prodding (link 5 , link 6), to outright manhandling and riding - yes, riding - (link 7 , link 8 , link 9), examples of wildlife harassment are bountiful. And these only represent recorded occurrences. So the question is why? What is it that compels people to abandon common sense and hassle wildlife?

One possibility is sheer ignorance. We grow up in a society that builds an invisible wall between ourselves and wildlife, between "civilization" and "wilderness". For most of people, the only experience they have with wildlife is through mostly anthropomorphized culture such as story books and television/films, zoos where non-human animals are separated from humans by a safe barrier, and harmless creatures that are generally ignored such as city-dwelling birds, rodents, and insects. In a way, we draw a non-existent line between ourselves and other wildlife, a line that seems to come equipped with a protective bubble inflated by ignorance. And perhaps these tourists take that line with them when they venture out into the wilderness, seeing a bear or bison as harmless as the caricatures they grew up with, and likewise themselves harmless toward the dolphin and sea turtle they grab at like toys.

Another theory is based on something all of these situations seem to have in common. It is not just about the interaction, but about documenting and sharing that interaction. All these cases involve people posing for a photo. It is as if their need to show off - "Hey! Look at me! I'm practically touching a real-life bison! I'm so cool!" - overrides any consequences of their actions. Unbridled vanity and a need to flaunt it.

If I had to guess, I would say this behavior stems from a combination of these factors - obliviousness to the reality of the situation as well as vain attention-seeking aimed at upping oneself in social status. And I am not saying that we should not interact with wildlife at all - we are also animals who share this world too. But it is one thing for an animal to mutually interact with you and another thing to force your interaction onto it. Perhaps if we spent more time experiencing and observing real wilderness, as vulnerable as a fawn in the presence of a wolf, that invisible line may begin to fade with our ignorance and we may develop a healthy respect for the life we inhabit the world with.

TL;DR: Don't be stupid, respect wildlife.

Behind The Mask Film Question

A question for thought: If the lucrative and woefully ungoverned businesses of animal research and factory farming have nothing to hide, why is it possible to witness the activities performed there only by stealth?

Revisiting the Sexual Politics of Meat

I've realized as more time passes and this Literature course progresses, I return to Carol Adams's "The Sexual Politics of Meat" as a resource for understanding, comparing, and further analyzing past circumstance equating to present pitfalls. More specifically, I began to breakdown what it means to have influence as a child, pressure from cultural practice, parental guidance, as well as social interactions with friends or others, down to reading and schoolwork. We are greatly influenced and conditioned as children to think that first meat consumption in 'natural' and secondly, that there are certain taboos and rules to be followed about the consumption of meat. Adams states in her piece, "Fairy tales initiate us at an early age into the dynamics of eating and sex roles." (Adams, 172). While it is well known that fairy tales give horribly built models for children to emulate gender wise, I had never considered or really thought about the practices surrounding food involved with children's tales. As she lists the occurrences, (Cannibalism in fairy tales usually male activity, Queen eats bread and honey while the king has blackbird pie, little miss muffet, etc.), I began to go back to my own experiences within childhood where I was either prone towards eating a food because my favorite storybook characters had it, or I would shy away from food, knowing it wasn't eaten by the characters I emulated.

Food for thought

Animal Empathy Or Case of Extreme Anthropomorphism?

Leopard Seal Feeds Photographer

National Geographic photographer interacts with leopard seal. Over the course of 4 days, it brings him food and attempts to show him how to kill prey. Is the seal really worried that he's a super dumb baby seal, or is there another explanation for the behavior? I'm not sure myself.

Rothfel, Zoos, Elephants

The following blog post will be concerning Rothfel's "Zoos, the Academy, and Captivity", and particularly the film he discusses, Microcultural Incidents in Ten Zoos. I found this to be a poignant piece in the writing, for at face value it is rather interesting to see micro-cultural trends occurring within humans at spaces meant to be displaying micro-cultures of the animals.  One quote refuses to leave me, "...zoos and elephants uniquely matter; they are significant and intriguing, even if it is not immediately evident from his film that Birdwhistell realized that." (Rothfels, 158). This quote sticks with me solely for the fact that we can realize the importance of majestic beings such as elephants only in compartmentalized spaces, when they are free and existing as they should, we tend to see them as mysterious, wild, and almost at a complete opposite to human existence. Yet within the frames of this silent film, even the director noticed the changed reverence towards this creature, because it was in a space which was comforting to the human population surrounding the elephant. Overall, Rothfel's article was extremely stimulating and interesting, zeroing in on zoos and their pitfalls, but for some reason the imagining of these seconds of film combining humans and elephants seems to encapsulate the entire argument.

A Playful take on Kafka's Metamorphisis

This is a really cool take of Metamorphosis, by Franz Kafka by one of my favorite authors David Rakoff. It gives a different voice and perspective to Gregor Samsa, the main character in Metamorphosis by having him interact with Dr. Seuss.

The ending is the best part, it is surprising, uplifting and beautiful. For those who have time I would take a listen!

This is an excerpt from the podcast This American Life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFnuXWcIpo4

Animals Raising Children

One of the readings for today, " St. Lucy's Home For The Girls Raised by Wolves" by Karen Russell, reveals a story about a group of girls being placed St. Lucy's Home after being raised by a pack of wolves. Some of the girls took longer to adapt to their human surroundings than others where one failed to adapt overall. This brief article below shows other cases of human children that were raised by animals. In most of the cases, these children were ultimately led to finding comfort in animals due to the neglect of their human parents.

http://theweek.com/articles/471164/6-cases-children-being-raised-by-animals
6 Cases of Children Being Raised by Animals

Animal Heroes

7 True Stories of Animal Rescuers

In our last section, the small group that I was a part of were discussing some strange behaviors that animals act upon. The sexual habits of dolphins and otters were brought up. All strange, all unexplained - but I think that, perhaps, such acts are influenced by humanity. Do you think this could be?

But then this link showed opposite behavior. Wild, wild animals (with an exception or two) saving human lives. Could this also be attributed to human influence? Do you think animals, like the lion, could be changed enough to put aside their dangerous instincts?

They're beautiful stories, beautiful animals, it just makes me think... Do you have the same reaction?

Thinking About Lives of Animals

Throughout lecture and with our own personal analyses of The Lives of Animals, we have spent a large amount of time trying to figure out what Coetzee's perspective is on animal rights. Does he agree with Elizabeth Costello? Or the daughter-in-law? Or maybe some other character completely? But I think we're focusing on the wrong issue.

The series of lectures, and even the responses that come after it, is showing us that there are many perspectives that people can have on this idea of animal rights (as with any issue!). There is never a whole consensus, someone is always there to make a counter argument, and the debate can last endlessly if so desired.

Coetzee, I believe, is trying to discuss that idea more than necessarily actual animal rights. I think he's trying to show that there will be never be a view that everyone can jump on board with for this issue and others like it. He's, instead, trying to have the reader understand the importance of thinking about your viewpoints and assessing them critically. I believe he's also trying to illustrate the importance of when you find a viewpoint that you can agree with to not be easily pushed and persuaded by the counterpoints of other perspectives (again referring to the idea of thinking CRITICALLY). Costello, the other members at the dinner, and even the daughter-in-law all have perspectives that they stick to despite other ideas being thrown at them.

 I think Coetzee could also be critiquing the way other people look down upon other people's ideas. The daughter-in-law is portrayed as being rude and disrespectful towards Costello throughout the story in a way that made me dislike her (which I think was the point). By making her seem this way, Coetzee could be trying to point out the difference between standing behind your viewpoint and being disrespectful to people. People should, once again, think critically about what the other is saying because it could be reasonable enough to morph your ideas. After deciding how to view the new knowledge received, they should then acknowledge the importance of it, whether they decide to agree with them or not.

Communication Between Human and Nonhuman Animals

The story, "Am I Blue?" by Alice Walker, brings up an interesting point of how well human animals and nonhuman animals are able to communicate. It seems as though many people do not realize that human animals and nonhuman animals have their own way of communicating and understanding one another. In her story Walker introduces this, "...I was shocked that I had forgotten that human animals and nonhuman animals can communicate quite well." The video below shows that humans are able to interpret what nonhuman animals, in this case dogs, are feeling by simply listening to them barking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87wLscGT68k

The Panther Analysis

For this poem it was quite unique and had many hidden messages for each stanza.
I believe that the first stanza talks about the panther being in a type of cage because of the words "passing bars" along with "a thousand bars".
The second stanza is probably demonstrating how the panther does not want to be tamed so instead it continues to walk in circles over and over.
As for the third stanza, it seems as if the panther had a visitor which ended the panthers life since it states "An image enters in, rushes down through the tensed, arrested muscles, plunges into the heart and is gone". Does that mean that the panther ended up dying? I'm still not too sure what the last stanza is trying to say. But these are what my analysis are at the moment.

Anthropomorphism in Comics

Hey everyone,
I found some animal comics/illustrations, many of which are examples of anthropomorphism and human egotism in our culture. Thought you might find these interesting!

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/slide-show-animal-cartoons-in-the-new-yorker

Anxious Dogs

My boyfriend and I got a puppy a month or so back - a small one, at most she'll be four pounds fully grown. My father had always been against small dogs. He would call them "rats" and "vermin," which pretty much sums up his opinion. He had warned me all my life about how they whine and bark. I chose to ignore him.

But now we have Nora, a beautiful, white and apricot colored teacup poodle. She's incredibly sweet and loving; we've taught her "come," to go into her crate when called, and to (mostly) stop biting. It's easy to say I adore her.

But, wow, she is annoying. When she starts, when she needs attention or to go to the bathroom or is simply just bored, her whining is incessant. Doesn't matter what we do, even if we pick her up and hold her like an infant, the high pitched noise will not stop.

I've looked up several methods to train her to stop. One site suggests ignoring her completely, not even to look at her, whenever she whines - a difficult task, considering we have roommates who also are affected by her wails. Another site suggests a spray bottle or a shake can, creating negative reactions whenever she squeaks. That method was funny. My father jokingly said we should get a shock-collar. I would be lying if I said we hadn't considered it, but she's too small, such a shock would kill her.

All in all, day by day, it's getting better. Maybe a miracle cure will come to us soon.

Good thing puppies are cute.

I'm rereading Redwall by Brian Jacques. If you didn't grow up reading this series, a brief recap looks like:
bunch of anthropomorphic woodland creatures living in their abbey, Redwall. In this story, the evil sea rat Cluny and his horde decide they want to rule Redwall, since it's a very peaceful, plentiful spot.
The mice and squirrels and hedgehogs etc have to defend their home.

These were some of my favorite books as a kid. They still hold up pretty well. But the fascinating thing about them is that the peaceful, brave, kind creatures are the woodland animals I described above: mice, squirrels, voles, moles, hedgehogs and rabbits. The evil doers are always rats (specifically sea rats), weasels, stoats, etc.

There is clear delineation between "animals we like and want to associate ourselves with" and "animals that we mistrust or dislike and associate with evil, greed, cruelty and stupidity."

What is the moral difference between a mouse and a rat? How did certain animals get singled out as baddies?
And why is it always weasels and stoats?!?

Nepal & Animals

Nepal earthquake: 'The disaster for these animals is not over'

This article shows the devastating result of the Nepal earthquake, not only for humans, but for animals. This article shows the importance of animals in a time of crisis and that animals are a major part of religion. Animals are important not only for sacrificial reasons, but they are very important to gods of all religions. "It’s clear they are very important to them, both financially and emotionally." Sometimes animals are all you have left and you have to help the animal(s) to help the human(s). 

Are We All Big, Dumb Kittens?

I found this interesting article discussing how dogs perceive us versus how cats see us here.

I was thinking about this idea of how cats seem to view us as other cats and it brings up the major question of why? One explanation could be  how we found functional purposes for dogs (such as hunting) but not so much for cats which could have changed the way we act toward cats versus how we act toward dogs.  The other thing I wonder is if this is true for the bigger "wild" cats (since, as professor pointed out in class, domestic cats and wild cats have the same genetic makeup).

We have had a good amount of readings talking about zoos. And they talked about families feeling depressed when they leave zoos, but what brings them back? I believe that Families in our societies are looking at zoos as a cultural or a traditional event that they need to attend. Visiting zoos turned into a habit.

Searching for the "Possibilities" in Zoos

The Rothfels reading ended with the author claiming that people go to the zoo "not because they fail to see the limitations of the place but because they are searching for the possibilities." This led me to search around to find out just what possibilities zoogoers are looking for and what they actually find. 


One study showed that many adults visit zoos alone rather than in groups with family and friends. Many talk un-self-consciously with the animals, maybe to be alone with their thoughts or because they can’t find a companion for the trip. For some it may be a way to socialize, identify, empathize with other beings, without the strain of always interacting with people. So I suppose that it can be viewed as an escapism of sorts in this sense.
 
Other reasons that I found were the obvious and often claimed ones like,the zoo is educational, or it exposes people to animals that they would not get a chance to see otherwise. There are studies that say otherwise about how educational zoos are and also with the internet capabilities in this day and age, one can easily stream videos and encounter animals virtually. Are zoos obsolete and if not, then are they worth keeping around? I remember enjoying the zoo when I was a kid, admiring all of the exotic animals, but I was naive back then and now have a better understanding of what the existence of zoos mean for animals. 

Domesticated Red Fox

I came across this BuzzFeed article that featured a domesticated red fox named Rylai.

According to Jennifer (the fox's owner), Rylai's family is more than 100 years removed from living in the wild, so she wouldn't be able to survive out there.

Any thoughts about the domestication of this red fox? the breeding of it? training/caring for a fox?

The only thing that can be concluded from this article is that Rylai is incredibly cute.

Link to the article: http://www.buzzfeed.com/juliekliegman/sleepiest-fox-ever

Intersectionality with Egalitarian Concepts.

From Black Beauty:

Jerry: “If they would break their own bones, and smash their own carts, and lame their own horses, that would be their own affair, and we might let them alone, but it seems to me that the innocent always suffer; and then they talk about compensation! You can't make compensation; there's all the trouble, and vexation, and loss of time, besides losing a good horse that's like an old friend -- it's nonsense talking of compensation!”

One particular intersection with class, race, gender/sex, etc. that we see in this class’s animality discourse is the concept of equality. The logic states that if equality can be extended to one group, it should then be applied to another or else produce a double standard of social treatment.

The paragraph I have quoted here is somewhat problematic toward this intersection. While Jerry grieves the damage to horses, he specifically notes that such infractions only apply as infractions when one does it to his/her own horse. He also notes that the loss of a good horse is like losing an old friend.

Here, Jerry clearly measures entitlement to right & suffering by performance and property. Jerry sets up qualifications for horses that are good, which must obviously be subjectively determined. It is implied that if a horse doesn’t meet Jerry’s standard of good, then it isn’t worth lamenting. If a horse is a person’s property, then they could, using Jerry’s words: break, smash and lame them. It would be their own affair.

While denouncing the horses’ poor treatment, Jerry inadvertently promotes values of slavery (horse as property) and classism (a good horse is an old friend implying that non-good horses are less valued).

While an intersection of egalitarian values is generally noted in this class, I notice that the stock placed in such values are inconsistent at best and contradictory at worst.

Who are the real animals?

I came across this today. Enjoy!

Animal Testing Helps Animals

“Without animal research, millions of dogs, cats, birds, and farm animals would be dead from more than 200 diseases, including anthrax, distemper, rabies, feline leukemia, and canine parvo virus, according to Americans for Medical Progress (AMP), a nonprofit group that supports the responsible and humane use of animals in biomedical research. Today, those diseases are largely preventable, thanks to vaccines and treatments developed in animal research.

In human terms, research with animals has led to vaccinations against smallpox, measles, mumps, diphtheria, and tetanus; development of anesthesia, antibiotics, and insulin; use of cardiac pacemakers and heart bypass surgery; surgical advancements for organ transplants, hip replacements, and cataract surgery; and treatments for a host of diseases, including diabetes, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, and children’s leukemia.”

http://cvma.net/publications/press-releases/%E2%80%A2animal-research-how-it-benefits-both-humans-and-animals/

Animal Testing - An Anecdote

Animal testing has been responsible for creating products which have saved millions of lives. For example: Insulin, the cure for diabetes which had a 100% mortality rate prior to its discovery, completely resulted from the removal of livers and extensive observation before&after the procedure on a number of dogs. The fact that these otherwise healthy dogs had their livers surgically extracted and ground up may sound terrible, but consider the following numbers:
According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/statsreport14/national-diabetes-report-web.pdf), there are an estimate of 29.1 million people who live with diabetes in the U.S. today.

The suffering of tens of dogs is responsible for the lives and happiness of millions. Even from a utilitarian perspective, such a thing as animal testing is not only morally permissible, but even morally obligatory.

Animal testing

I researching certain topics regarding animal testing and i have found out that a very high percentage of this animal testing actually leads benefiting the human race with very important medications. I am honestly stuck in a dilemma now of whether i should be pro animal testing or oppose it. what do you guys think?

About the Cicada

This article about the Cicada by Fabre was quite interesting because the Cicada is quite similar to the way the human's act. There are many metaphors in this article such as how Fabre describes the Cicada to be a beggar because he/she doesn't gather food during the winter but instead continue to plays his "song" while the ant grabs food.
Relating to the human life, anyone that tends to slack instead of work ends up falling behind.

Another metaphor that Fabre has said about the Cicada was that, the Cicada has some sort of plate that they get and put into their body to play their music. This moves their organs to the side because there needs to be space for that particular object.
Relating to humans this can be seen as humans having so much heart for something they love to do that they are willingly going to sacrifice anything to continue doing what they love to do.

There are many more metaphors in this article and was wondering if anyone else wanted to share some with the class?

Incest Taboo and 21st Century Advertisements

After section yesterday I couldn't stop thinking about the incest taboo and its effects on the current relations between men and women. I found some advertisements that seem to reinforce this commodification of women for consumption that I have learned through our reading, isn't a new construction at all. What disturbs me most is that these types of ads are so common place that most people won't find them surprising at all. This objectification of women is so deeply ingrained in our culture. In each of these advertisements the woman is compared to or paralleled with the object that is to be sold. As you can see in the first ad, the male is purchasing the woman/object,which is very reminiscent of the "gift giving" of women in medieval times. This objectification of women also reminded me of the objectification of animals, as we touched on with the Sexual Politics of Meat. I'd like to know what other people think.