Wilbur 1

Lauren Wilbur

ANTH 25305

10 December 2021

Final Exam

Question 2:

Food and sex are intrinsically linked. If it were not for eating and reproducing, the human

species (or all life, for that matter) would not exist. Of course people consume and produce food,

but we also consume and produce each other. Human bodies, social relations, and other aspects

of culture are defined by gendered foodways. From gender divisions of labor to popular

representations of fertility, food and food practices continually divide and unite people.

Within a myriad of cultures, there exists a gendered division of labor. In Medieval

Europe, “food was not merely a resource women controlled; it was the resource women

controlled” (Bynum 1984, 146). For medieval women, starvation was seen as the only way they

could take back their lives. While men provided the financial resources, “women were associated

with food preparation and distribution rather than food consumption. The culture suggested that

women cook and serve, men eat” (Bynum 1984, 146). Whereas religious fasting was seen as an

acceptable way for women to connect with God, it also “provided for both wives and daughters

an excuse for neglecting food preparation and family responsibilities” (Bynum 1984, 148). By

avoiding their gendered domestic labor role with fasts, medieval women could take back some

agency over their lives and bodies.

Across the Atlantic and hundreds of years into the future, these gendered divisions have

come to proliferate in the Americas. In fact, the same ideas of women as providers of food and

men as providers of money carries into rural Jamaica. Where “a woman who feeds a child after it
 Wilbur 2

is born can claim motherhood” and “a man who spends his money on food for a child can claim

fatherhood.” (Sobo 1994, 263). Since families are often the first place children are socialized,

many of these gender roles are present in other relationships. In romantic relationships, “men

involved with women put on pounds from the meals their women serve them” (Sobo 1994, 269).

These meals are signs of a woman’s love, care, and proper socialization. In the absence of a

loving family or other social relationships, people must cook for themselves. However, “the

procurement and ingestion of packaged ready-to-eat foods do not involve the regular division of

labor and tradition of sharing” (Sobo 1994, 262); these foods are a sign of ostracization. In rural

Jamaica, sharing food is the most meaningful way for people to form connections with each

other. When foods have not “been prepared by a loving and morally obligated other,” it shows

that something must be wrong with the person (Sobo 1994, 262). Cooking is the labor of love,

without it people are thought to waste away and become thin.

A little further North in the United States, the beloved peanut butter and jelly sandwich

represents the gendered division of labor (that has continued to evolve since the invention of the

PB&J). From World War II until the present day, there have been enormous changes to gender

relations in the United States. These changes can be traced through the popular attitudes

surrounding who should be making the kids peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. In 1942, women

were encouraged to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches - “saying that rationing gave ‘every

American housewife the chance to do her bit’ for the war effort” (Estes 2017, 7). Since families

had to cut back on meat consumption and some women entered the workforce for the first time,

peanut butter and jelly sandwiches became a staple meal. However, “the women making these

sandwiches in the 1950s had a love-hate relationship with them” (Estes 2017, 8). At this time

many women were still primarily situated in the home; domestic labor was exhausting and
 Wilbur 3

largely unappreciated. Sometimes “PB&Js were all she had time to make for herself and her

kids” (Estes 2017, 8). Once women began to enter the workforce on a larger scale, the gender

division of labor drastically changed. Soon, “the unspoken assumption throughout the 1970s was

that men could (finally) connect to children through PB&Js, and they could make PB&Js

because the dish didn’t require actual cooking” (Estes 2017, 11). While many women began to

be shamed for making the simple peanut butter and jelly, men were celebrated for finally taking

on the domestic task of sandwich making. As this trend continued, “concern for children and

families rippled through American society as the feminist movement and rising divorce rates

altered gender roles and family structures in the 1970s and ’80s” (Estes 2017, 11). The peanut

butter and jelly sandwich once had very strict rules: children ate them, mothers made them, and

fathers paid for the ingredients. Although, today the peanut butter and jelly sandwich is a

“gender neutral” food, enjoyed by all as a form of childhood nostalgia.

While food and sex go together (like peanut butter and jelly), fasting and abstinance

simultaneously represent the religious equivalent and opposite. The acts of eating and

procreating are the fundamental basis of life. However, medieval women would become ascetics

by extreme and prolonged fasting - only consuming the eucharist. Although this starvation is the

biological antithesis of life-creating action, “women ate and became a God who was food and

flesh. And in eating a God whose flesh was holy food, women both transcended and became

more fully the flesh and the food their own bodies were'' (Bynum 1984, 151). Thus, women were

reinvigorated by the life-creating powers of God; they did not need to eat to live. By “controlling

eating and hunger, medieval women were also explicitly controlling sexuality” (Bynum 1984,

147). There is an obvious connection between fasting and the avoidance of child rearing. Not

only does menstruation stop when a woman commits to self-starvation, often this behavior would
 Wilbur 4

start when families attempted to marry off their daughters. However, married women could also

control the sexual appetite of their “husbands by wasting away” and correcting “disorderly male

behavior” (Bynum 1984, 147). In Medieval Europe, the Christian church “connected food

abstinence with chastity and greed with sexual desire” (Bynum 1984, 147). Technically women

did not need to have sex to create life either, as evidenced by Jesus Chirst; so these efforts to

control sexuality with the religious food practices of women were largely successful.

Since fasting and self-starvation are akin to medieval contraception, for a society that

values reproduction - thinness is taboo. In rural Jamaica, women’s bodies must be plump;

“fatness connotes fullness and juicy ripeness, like that of ripe fruit well sweet” (Sobo 1994, 260).

The shape of a woman’s body is like a billboard denoting fertility. Sexualization begins when

“young girls plump up in late adolescence as a prelude to childbearing. Men often call pubescent

girls soon ripe, and they allude to sex with ripe girls through talk of harvesting” (Sobo 1994,

260). Language about consuming or eating women is common in many cultures, but this context

is much more complex than comparing women to desserts. The gendered ideal body types of

rural Jamaica can be used as a marker of social standing, relationship status, charitability, and

even personality. More than just sexual attraction, body shapes have a connection to health and

the reproductive capacities of men and women. While “ideas about infertility and unkindness are

linked with the notion of thinness” (Sobo 1994, 261), fatness is associated with happiness and a

high quality of life. Although, bodies and body parts can be more explicitly connected to

sexuality as well. “Like an erect penis or breasts plumped with milk, like a fat juicy mango, the

body seems more vital when full of fluid and large in size” (Sobo 1994, 262). Where starvation

means death, a fat body brings forth new life.

 Wilbur 5

In the works of Carolyn Bynum (1984), Elisa Sobo (1994), and Steven Estes (2017),

links between foodways and gender are obvious in the discussions of labor and sexuality. While

many other connections exist in these texts - such as religion, charity, popular culture, etc -

gendered labor practices and reproduction happen in the most intimate arenas of life. How

people eat, how people work, and how people have children are both universal basic experiences

and completely unique choices.

Question 3:

What people eat and how people eat are extremely personal and intimate decisions. These

decisions define identities, beliefs, values - the things people use to feel included as part of a

larger cultural group. While eating is often thought of as a cultural practice, it must always be

viewed as a moral and political activity. Whether it is a choice between celebrating a holiday

marked by large-scale ethnic cleansing, or eating foods propagandized by the USDA; somehow

the United States government is always involved with what is on your plate.

Although Thanksgiving has a long and bloody history, most people in the United States

celebrate some version of it every year. The Thanksgiving holiday is intrinsically linked with

imperialism and genocide as the “ritual is further woven into the fabric of the American

'exceptionalist' imaginary of manifest destiny of victorious happiness” (Fiskesjö 2010, 14).

While this “victorious happiness” rested on the successful ethnic cleansing efforts of Native

populations, the Thanksgiving holiday is supposed to be about gratitude and family. Without

knowing any of the history behind the holiday, people may be forgiven to think it is just a time to

give thanks. The United States propaganda machine barely stops short of advertising “a fantasy

image of a turkey in high-heeled shoes, one wing placed seductively, invitingly, behind her head,

hints of breasts showing” (Adams 1998, 67). However, people in the United States typically
 Wilbur 6

know the true meaning of Thanksgiving and celebrate it anyway; even if it is just eating the

traditional foods associated with the holiday. If the politics and morality surrounding

Thanksgiving are questionable at best, then it is the most successful political ritual for the

country.

Since Thanksgiving is not a religious holiday, most of the symbolism and ritual

associated with the event is centered around creating a shared national identity. Within families,

“Thanksgiving is a fraught site for the rehearsal of, and challenges to, perceived traditional roles

in the home — and here these roles are tied up with the dutiful performance of a specifically

American ritual” (Fiskesjö 2010, 14). Women typically take on the role of homemaker, even if

they work outside of the home full time, and men watch football or play games with the kids.

The moral values surrounding home-cooked meals and women belonging in the kitchen define

traditional family roles.While these ideas are not as popular any other day of the year, this

holiday emphasizes an ideal past. In a way, “Thanksgiving cast home-making American mothers

and families in a crucial supporting role for the Nation” (Fiskesjö 2010, 14). Thus, each

celebrating family comes together for a small-scale performance of the political interests of the

United States.

However, the true Oscar-worthy performance happens during the annual turkey pardon.

Emblematic of the moral and political reputation of the country’s sovereign “each president

exhorts the citizenry to give thanks and asks for divine blessing for the nation” (Fiskesjö 2010,

14). In ritualistically saving a turkey on national television, the president displays grace and

restriction. Showing mercy, being a provider, and using political power for sustaining life are all

moral qualities the citizens of the United States want to see in the presidential office. “The

symbolic gift to the people of millions of turkeys, which is channeled and blessed by the
 Wilbur 7

sovereign-president each year, is a re-enactment of the founding of the divinely protected state,

in its position as 'world leader'” (Fiskesjö 2010, 16). By highlighting “the sovereign's role in

facilitating the sustenance of the people” (Fiskesjö 2010, 15), the president's status is elevated as

provider-in-chief. Although, the turkey pardon is more than just a political representation of the

president’s sympathetic feelings for United States citizens. This ritual clearly shows the

“president's power over life and death” (Fiskesjö 2010, 16). After the televised ritual, the

“pardoned” turkey is sent to its death anyway - it is all political theater.

Within the United States, corporations and the government often work together in an

attempt to reconfigure the cultural-moral compass to propagandize political (and economic)

needs. Meat industries in particular worked closely with the United States Department of

Agriculture to create "The Four Basic Food Groups" (Adams 1998, 69). However, the system

focused on the producers, not the consumers, because the meat and dairy industry wanted higher

profits. "People do not eat until a certain weight of food has been consumed but rather until

Caloric requirements are satisfied" (Adams 1998, 69). Even though vegetables win out in

nutrient and calorie ratios, meat and meat products were proportionally half of “The Basic Four

Food Groups” (and later sat at the top of the food pyramid). A political and profit motivated

decision dismissed all people who held moral objections to eating meat. Although the moral

decision to abstain from eating meat is also a political decision, it is one made on a personal level

and not projected onto every member of society.

Therefore, the diet pushed by the United States Department of Agriculture is a decision

that was made in bad faith and actively harms people. "The Four Basic Food Groups" daily

recommendation of meat and dairy products "is associated with increased risk of cancer, heart

disease, obesity, diabetes, and osteoporosis" (Adams 1998, 69). Essentially, this political decision
 Wilbur 8

was killing people and “industries spent millions of dollars'' (Adams 1998, 69) to make it

happen. Almost everything people eat as consumers has to have the government’s approval to

end up on their plate. Even if people in the United States go out of their way to try to purchase

“ethical” products that align with their food moral values, eating is always a political act. The

United States government and corporations actively lie to consumers with greenwashing, federal

subsidies, and misleading dietary advice. Eating is a moral act because people value themselves

and value what they put in their bodies. When an outside force does not allow people to make the

right choices for themselves, eating must become political.

If an individual decided to become a vegetarian for ethical and moral reasons in the

United States, suddenly they were seen as “other” - different. With “the coercive nature of our

‘meat’ advocating culture” (Adams 1998, 69), it has been made as hard as possible to abstain

from animal products (From personal experience I can say this has been getting much better in

the last five years, but I still avoid disclosing my diet - you might be surprised how forceful

people have been). While a simple dietary choice might have seemed innocent enough,

advertisements and propaganda would berate non-meat eaters with insults and unnecessary

hardships. Thus, “the message is that vegetarians are unreal people, ‘they’ but not ‘we,’ ‘sissies’

or ‘fruits’” (Adams 1998, 68). What had once just been a miniscule personal decision based on

moral values, suddenly blew up - every time a vegetarian dared to eat a meal it was a political

statement. Seeing how “an advertisement claims that ‘meat’ is ‘real food for real people,’ the

implications are obvious. We want to be included; we want to be real people” (Adams 1998, 67).

However, the politics of the meat and dairy industries create a binary culture, a person is either

part of the group or outside. “To resist the eating of animals causes one to be excluded from the
 Wilbur 9

socially constructed ‘we’” (Adams 1998, 67). In refusing to take an animal’s life, the vegetarian

is culturally and politically ostracized.

While people in the United states have the freedom to choose the foods they eat and

holidays they celebrate, ultimately the government controls the entire food system. On

Thanksgiving the president is “playing politics with birds” (Fiskesjö 2010, 15), but after the

holidays - turkeys join all other meat-producing animals in death. Thanks to the agricultural

practices in the United States, “the happiest turkey on earth” is sent off to their final destination

and “quietly killed there, as their under-engineered legs would soon succumb to the weight of

their bloated bodies” (Fiskesjö 2010, 14). Industrial agriculture has created animals that cannot

even stand, but they can provide more food. When it comes down to morality, is it better to treat

animals well or make sure people have enough to eat? Just like the individual decisions

consumers have to make, the United States government and meat industry had to choose. The

“United States Department of Agriculture’s description of cows, pigs, and chickens as

“grain-consuming animal units” (Adams 1998, 64) has taken away all individuality from

animals. For better or worse, “this makes people ‘animal-consuming human units’” (Adams

1998, 64). Even the grain-based diet for animals was a political decision motivated by profits.

Both works by Magnus Fiskesjö (2010) and Carole Adams (1998) discuss the culturally

specific strategy of asserting agency and control over animals. Since the United States’ past is

littered with the carcasses of animals like the bison (hunted to near-extinction as a way to kill off

Native populations), it is not surprising that they continue to use animals for political gain. Even

after decades of backlash, Thanksgiving will remain a holiday so long as the United States

remains a country. Thus, the foods an individual eats must always be viewed as moral; consumer
 Wilbur 10

spending is the only political power people have over government-supported corporations and

industries