My Year of Meats; Its not very funny, or was he?

In a world where economics and humanity as a whole depends on the stereotypes which define them; meat describes more than one aspect of life. Ironically the women in My year of meats are characterized like pieces of meet being torn apart by the eyes of hungry people, the hunger coming from visceral men, needy housewives, and corporate snobs. The hunger affords opportunity for growth but also its parallel; demoralization.

Setting up a show of meats with the "Stepford Wives" to further the American image of perfection is in itself ironic. In needing to "weed out" specific attributes of a majority of thepopulation- the documentary show in which the women star is a paradox in itself. For years, American women strove to live up to the American dream, and in having and wanting to portray the country as anything other than the troubled place it is ( Which Edwin would surely agree makes people human ) contradicts the message the show is sending foreign nations.

In a manner of itself, the extreme of women as meats to sell a corporate message defines a metaphor of history. As far back as economics go, it has been the exploitation of specific groups, objects, food, or any number of things that led to up-selling that item. Exploiting the uprise in the need for technology has allowed for the majority of the human population to have cellphones, access to bank accounts on the fly, and PDA's. The exploitation of the women is in itself raw- but real. How else did the women riveters during WWI help gather moral for men and numbers for troops. The same goes for My Year of Meats , despite the vulgar and visceral nature of the exploitation; it is as real as tomorrow. 

Ozeki could very well be on to something for authors like Upton Sinclair ( auothor of The Jungle ) compare the likeness of the lives of the human race to that of a jungle- fighting for survival.