鈥淭he omnivore鈥檚 deception,鈥� as I call it, is the idea that we can go on raising and killing other animals for food without harming animals, wrecking our planet鈥檚 ecology, or ruining our own souls.  But we can’t.  It鈥檚 time to abolish the animal food economy in its entirety. 

Why do you use the word 鈥渄eception鈥�?  

The meat, dairy, egg, and fishing industries deceive the American people about the terrible impacts of these industries on animals, on the environment, and on human health.  Meanwhile, critics like Michael Pollan, Temple Grandin, and others have misled the public by telling consumers that these violent animal industries can somehow be 鈥渞eformed鈥� and made 鈥渉umane,鈥� when they can鈥檛 be.   

But you use 鈥渄eception鈥� also in a different way… 

Yes, we also deceive ourselves.  We want to believe that there is a 鈥渘ice鈥� or 鈥渃ompassionate鈥� way to go on exploiting and killing animals in the billions, when we know, deep down, that there isn鈥檛.  We can鈥檛 have our meat and our consciences too. 

But haven鈥檛 humans been eating other animals since forever? 

The fact that a practice has been around for a long time is no proof of its moral 鈥渞ightness.鈥�  We know from history that unjust practices and institutions can persist for generations, yet be wrong.  Slavery lasted for thousands of years, but that didn鈥檛 make it right.  Similarly, just because we鈥檝e been subjecting other species to cruelty for countless generations doesn鈥檛 mean that we should continue to do so. 

To play devil鈥檚 advocate, don鈥檛 other animals kill for food?  What鈥檚 the difference when we do it?  What about the lion who eats a gazelle?   

As obligate carnivores, lions have to eat meat in order to survive.聽 That isn鈥檛 true of us.聽 We therefore have a latitude of moral action that lions and other carnivores do not.聽 Nutritionists have shown that vegan diets are in fact better for us than animal-based ones.聽 Vegans have lower rates of heart disease, stroke, cancer, and Type-2 diabetes, and even live longer than 鈥渙mnivores鈥� who eat animal products.聽 We can choose not to inflict violent harm on other animals, and we鈥檒l even be better off for it.聽聽聽

So you鈥檙e saying that there is no 鈥渘atural鈥� imperative for us to keep raising and killing animals for food? 

Breeding animals in the billions, raising them in confinement, and slaughtering them is no more or less natural than paying taxes, streaming Netflix, or burning witches at the stake. If we chose to, we could shut down the slaughterhouses and recall our fishing fleets tomorrow.  And in doing so we would no more be acting 鈥渁gainst nature鈥� than if we decided to ban opioids or to raise the minimum wage.  Furthermore, the anthropological evidence suggests that for most of our time as a species, about 200,000 years, we have gotten the vast majority of our calories from plants, not from the flesh of animals. 

Can鈥檛 we kill animals without causing them to suffer? 

No.聽 Each year, we kill 80 billion land animals and up to 2.7 trillion marine animals in the food system.聽 There is simply no way to commit such mass violence without causing the animals trapped in the system to undergo unspeakable forms of suffering.聽 Baby pigs are castrated and have their ears docked without anesthesia; improperly stunned cows are dismembered and skinned alive; pigs and chickens are often scalded alive after having their throats cut; fishing results in terrible suffering in fish, and so on.聽 I could give many other examples.聽 If we treat the lives of animals as worthless and disposable, then inevitably extreme cruelty and suffering will follow.聽

Isn鈥檛 the problem the factory farming system, industrialized animal agriculture? 

No, this is one of the biggest misunderstandings about the animal food system. The reason animals are reared in miserable, intensive confinement is because there is no other way to produce animal products at scale for 8 billion human beings.  The problem therefore isn鈥檛 鈥渇actory farms鈥�–it鈥檚 that we violently make use of animals for our purposes. Criticism of killing and eating animals in fact predates the factory farming system by 3,000 years.  Even small-scale animal agriculture is based on enslaving other beings and subjecting them to ruthless violence.   

Isn鈥檛 it dangerous to compare our treatment of animals to slavery? 

Animal domestication鈥攖he keeping and breeding of other animals for our exploitation and use鈥攚as in fact the model for human slavery in the ancient world.  And the two systems, slavery and animal domestication, were treated as similar practices for thousands of years.  Later, in the Antebellum South, racial slavery was justified by reference to our supposed 鈥渘atural鈥� domination over other animals.  Astonishingly, we find critics like Michael Pollan today defending animal agriculture using the same arguments that earlier critics once used to defend human slavery鈥攕uch as the argument that 鈥渋nferior鈥� beings 鈥渃onsent鈥� to being violently exploited by a more powerful group. 

So our treatment of other animals resembles other institutions of oppression or injustice? 

Yes鈥攖he animal economy has a great deal in common with other forms of domination, including totalitarianism.聽 The levels of violence are similar, the degradation, the cruelty, and the kinds of rationales given in support of those systems are similar, too.聽 Victims of systemic violence are always viewed with contempt, as 鈥渋nferiors鈥� who deserve what is done to them. And as in totalitarianism, we subject animals’ lives, bodies, and minds to total control, including through genetic manipulation and psychological torment.聽

What about animal behaviorists like Temple Grandin, or smaller-scale farmers like Joel Salatin, who argue that we can at least reduce suffering in farmed animals? 

Grandin, Salatin, and other critics who defend 鈥渆thical鈥� animal farming all begin from the same starting point, which is to assume that animals鈥� lives are so worthless that we can go on killing them in the billions or even trillions, without committing any injustice against them.  But even if we could kill animals painlessly鈥攚hich is a complete fantasy鈥擨 argue that it would still be wrong.  Other animals are worthy of their lives, they are individuals, conscious beings–鈥渟omeones鈥濃�攁nd they deserve to be treated as such, not to be subjected to violence. 

Is there a disconnect between our love for animals as pets and our appetite for using other animals as food? 

Yes.聽 Pigs, chickens, cows, geese, sheep, ducks, and other exploited animals have been shown to be just as cognitively and emotionally complex and present as the cats and dogs we lavish with affection and treat as members of our own families.聽 The contradiction between these two ways of living a human life鈥攐ne lived in communion and love with animals, the other in violent contempt of their very lives鈥攔uns like an unmapped seismic fault beneath society, tracing the boundary of two irreconcilable value structures and modes of life.聽 There is a better way to live a human life than with such hypocrisy and cruelty.聽

What is the new science of animal minds and emotions revealing to us about animals鈥� complexity and sensitivity? 

We are raised to think of intelligence or complex emotions as uniquely 鈥渉uman.鈥�  But nothing could be further from the truth.  Pigeons are better than us at some forms of spatial reasoning; chickens have 鈥渨ords鈥� to warn one another of different kinds of predators; chimpanzees exhibit short-term memory skills that are superior to our own; and fish exhibit intelligence that rival intelligence in primates, and so on.  Even invertebrates like mollusks and insects exhibit complex consciousness.  Many species, including rats, pigs, birds, and apes, meanwhile exhibit empathy for others, and will even sacrifice their own interests to prevent suffering in others.  The evidence shows, in short, that other animals are 鈥渟omeones,鈥� unique individuals with distinct personalities and interests, including an interest in not being killed. 

Shouldn鈥檛 we also care about the lives of plants, too?  And what about the 鈥渞ights鈥� of AI? 

There is no evidence that plants have consciousness.  Unlike animals, plants do not have emotions or first-person experiences, which means they are incapable of forming meaningful social bonds with others, they aren鈥檛 vulnerable to psychological trauma, and so on.  So it is quite disturbing to see people denying the obvious qualitative distinction between plants and animals.  As for AI, there is no evidence whatsoever that AI will ever develop consciousness.  To talk about 鈥淎I rights鈥� is a distraction from the far more important issue of how we treat beings known to have complex consciousness. 

How is the raising and killing of animals for food impacting our planet鈥檚 ecology? 

Two systems are undermining the conditions of all life on Earth today.  One is human domination of animals, and the other is capitalism.  Like entwined strands of DNA, these two systems form not so much distinct processes as elements of the same total structure of biological annihilation, a double helix encoding the end of terrestrial life.  And the two forces have come together in the animal food economy.  Animal agriculture is the main cause of the global mass extinction crisis, of land degradation, biodiversity loss, sedimentation of coastal areas, water pollution, depletion of freshwater aquifers, and so on.  In fact, the animal food economy is the single most ecologically destructive force on Earth today.  It鈥檚 even worse than global warming, which it contributes to.  Animal agriculture produces more climate-altering emissions than cars, trucks, and planes combined. 

Can you give some examples of the ecological savings that would come our way by shifting to a universal vegan diet? 

Animal-based foods, including the monocrops grown to feed animals raised for slaughter, account for 90% of agricultural land use in the US.  Compared to an animal-based diet, a vegan diet requires less than half as much water, cuts land use and water pollution by 75%, reduces the loss of wildlife by two-thirds, and yields three-quarters fewer climate emissions.  It takes 1,800 gallons to produce a pound of beef, compared to 220 gallons to grow a pound of wheat.  It takes 670 gallons of water to yield 3.5 oz of protein from dairy cheese, but only 91 gallons of water to grow potatoes and 24 gallons to grow soy to produce an equivalent amount of protein. Veganism also would be the safest way to geoengineer our way naturally out of the climate emergency:  shifting to a plant-based diet could free up 75% of the land now being taken up by agriculture; once reforested, that land could sequester up to 215 gigatons of carbon (GtC) over the next century, cooling the planet.  

Why do we hear so many critics now promoting a 鈥渃arnivore鈥� diet, if veganism has been shown to confer distinct health advantages? 

Meat is not like other products we buy鈥攊t鈥檚 closely tied to gender norms.  Mostly it鈥檚 men promoting meat-based diets, misogynistic influencers like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, whose conception of masculinity is rooted in violence against animals and domination over Nature and over women.  It鈥檚 no accident that the resurgence of a 鈥減ro-meat鈥� lobby is occurring at a time of the MAGA movement, which embraces machismo, authoritarianism, and heedless expansion of the oil and coal industries.  The promotion of meat is part of a wider cultural shift against compassion, against empathy, against equality, against environmentalism. 

Is that partly why meat has become a flashpoint in the US culture wars? 鈥疻hat types of federal legislation are some Republicans putting forward in order to suppress animal welfare standards through the country? 

Republican legislators have been trying to pass the so-called Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression or EATS act, which would overturn thousands of local and state laws ensuring public food and environmental safety, and minimum standards of animal welfare.  Last year, meanwhile, governor Ron DeSantis signed legislation to prohibit efforts to market plant-based and cellular meats and other alternatives to conventional meat in Florida, portraying vegans as part of 鈥済lobal elite鈥� conspiracy bent on achieving 鈥渁uthoritarian goals.鈥�  This kind of lunacy is now endangering public health.  One reason the federal government has dropped the ball on avian flu is that government officials have been afraid of antagonizing the animal agriculture industry, which has resisted the on-site inspections and testing that could have led to more effective containment efforts against this deadly virus. 

We are hearing a lot in the news these days about avian flu.  Is the animal system placing us at risk of another devastating pandemic? 

The animal system is escalating the risk of deadly pandemics like avian flu.  Three-quarters of all emerging diseases are zoonotic, meaning that they originate in other species.  Animal agriculture increases the risk of such diseases astronomically–first, by destroying animals鈥� habitats, thereby putting other species in greater proximity to us and to one another, and second, by crowding animals together in misery on industrial farms, which weakens their immune systems and multiplies avenues for viral contagion and mutation.  That鈥檚 now happening with avian flu, which has become endemic to the US animal agriculture system. 

How dangerous is avian flu? 

The mortality rate of avian flu has been over 50% historically, making it up to 100 times more deadly than Covid.  The World Health Organization has warned that if the H5N1 virus mutates into a form transmissable between humans, it could kill up to 150 million people.  So we have every incentive to end animal farming, for our own safety.  That said, we should abolish the animal food system not merely because it鈥檚 in our self-interest to do so, but because it鈥檚 simply wrong to treat animals as mere 鈥渢hings鈥� to exploit for our purposes. 

What do we stand to gain in ending our brutal use of animals, and our dependence on meat? 

We stand to gain a lot. We would secure our own future survival as a species, because the animal system is literally destroying the ecology of the Earth, the very means of life.  And there are significant health advantages to a plant-based diet.  But more importantly, we would make our species worthy of its own existence.  Right now, we have organized our economy and even our identity around mass violence, trauma, and violence towards our fellow creatures.  However, there is a better, a 鈥渉igher鈥� form of human existence available to us, if we relate to other animals differently. 

What would it mean to relate to other animals differently?   

By approaching other beings with love, rather than contempt and aggression, we open ourselves to a deeper kind of connection, not only towards others but to ourselves鈥攁 deeper communion with our fellow beings and with one another.  Millions of people already have close emotional relationships with their cats and dogs.  But all animals are worthy of being loved.  And as one cannot love what one seeks to destroy, it follows that we must end our exploitation and killing of animals in food, science, entertainment, etc. 

Many people think that being a vegan is difficult, and that vegans sacrifice pleasure for ethics.  Do you agree? 

Vegetarian cuisine extends back 3,000 years.  And every culture has its share of vegan foods–pasta with marinara in Italy, lentils and many other dishes in India, rice and beans and maize in Latin America, bread in Europe and Africa, noodles in Asia, and so on.  Of the estimated 250,000 edible plants on the Earth, furthermore, we consume only a tiny percentage.  So there鈥檚 a limitless variety of delicious foods to eat as a vegan.  I鈥檝e been a vegan for over 30 years, and I eat a wider variety of fabulous foods today than I did before I gave up eating meat, eggs, and cheese. 

How will future generations judge our treatment of animals today? 

A day will come when we look back on our treatment of animals today with the same degree of moral revulsion that we feel gazing back at the horrors of slavery.  Our descendants, too, will wonder at our own apathy and indifference in the face of so plain and pervasive an evil.  It鈥檚 time for a new approach–a better way of being human. 

John Sanbonmatsu is Professor of Philosophy at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Worcester, MA. He is the editor of and author of The Postmodern Prince: Critical Theory, Left Strategy, and the Making of a New Political Subject.

The fourth chapter of聽鈥檚 new book,聽The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, imagines a dinner party with 60 of Ward鈥檚 queer friends and colleagues. They鈥檙e in the middle of a critical discussion about straight culture and the boredom, obliviousness and bad sex they associate with it. Also discussed are oppressive straight rituals like bridal showers 补苍诲听. Mostly, though, Ward and her queer comrades pity straight people who don鈥檛 seem to like each other very much, evidenced by men shit-talking the mothers of their children and straight women constantly complaining about the men in their lives.

The professor of gender and sexuality studies at the University of California, Riverside, pulls no punches as she offers a century-long investigation of the 鈥渕isogyny paradox,鈥� wherein men are encouraged to simultaneously desire and hate women. The message is unapologetically feminist, as is Ward鈥檚 central thesis: Straight men would do well to lean into conversations around consent, privilege and toxic masculinity 鈥� at the very least to demonstrate genuine empathy for the women they profess to love. Maybe they could even like women, she suggests, imagining a world in which straight men rename their sexual orientation 鈥渇eminist,鈥� as it would more accurately describe the depth of their respect of women. 

I recently spoke with  about how The Honeymooners and I Love Lucy were emblematic of the marital discord found in much of the 20th century; what straight men can learn from lesbians; and why she thinks queer people should worry about straight people.

Why are you, a self-described 鈥渇emme dyke,鈥� so concerned about straight people? 

Because I鈥檓 a feminist. Lesbian feminists in the 1970s were also crying queer tears for straight women because they were observing how difficult it was for straight women to be in relationships with men, and many feminists were strategizing about how to be allies to straight women. So part of this book is me returning to those questions about what it means to heal centuries of patriarchy and misogyny. In the same way that we鈥檙e grappling with centuries of white supremacy in this country, this book is very much about what it means for men and women to come together by loving and respecting one another, and liberating heterosexuality from misogyny by unraveling the legacy of gendered violence that shapes the context in which straight relationships occur.

If 迟丑补迟鈥檚 the goal, why is it more appropriate to worry about heterosexuals rather than be upset with them, and call them in rather than calling them out?

We鈥檝e been calling them out for decades, and it hasn鈥檛 helped them. So this is about recognizing that heterosexual relationships are often fraught with inequities rigged into the system from the start. , whether it鈥檚 house work, parenting work or having bad sex that centers on men鈥檚 orgasms over women鈥檚. Meanwhile, women鈥檚 passions and careers are sidelined, and they鈥檙e doing way too much emotional labor because their husbands or boyfriends won鈥檛 go to therapy and don鈥檛 have any close friends. The list goes on and on of all the ways people get caught up in cycles of straight misery. This is why the majority of heterosexual divorces are  by women. 

You note that one of the defining features of straight culture is complaint, which leaves feminist lesbians shaking their heads wondering why women stay with someone they find so pathetic. Has that been your experience, too? 

When I鈥檓 hanging out with a group of straight women, they just love to complain about their husbands and boyfriends. He doesn鈥檛 do his fair share; he acts like a child; he鈥檚 emotionally deficient. When you鈥檙e listening to that as a queer person, it鈥檚 perplexing. The first reaction is, Why doesn鈥檛 she just leave him? But we now know as feminists that blaming women who are in abusive relationships isn鈥檛 the way to go, and the first question should always be, Why is he treating her that way? 

It鈥檚 important to recognize that for people who are socialized into straight culture, those inequities aren鈥檛 only deeply normalized, but romanticized. So it鈥檚 hard for straight women to make sense of what they imagine to be a natural impulse in men because 迟丑补迟鈥檚 the message they鈥檙e often given 鈥� 鈥渕en will be men鈥� 鈥� and they don鈥檛 realize that they can demand men to be different.

You wrote this book out of solidarity with straight women, but your focus shifted to include straight men. Why? 

Mostly because I feel empathy for and connection with men. I have a number of good feminist men in my life, and I know what it鈥檚 like to desire women, to lust after women, to objectify women and to struggle to balance that with feminist politics. But what really struck me about the culture straight men are embedded in is that the desire for women is often talked about as an individualized experience. 

When you鈥檙e a lesbian and attracted to women, it鈥檚 usually inseparable from feminism. Because if you desire women, you also desire what鈥檚 best for women 鈥� women鈥檚 freedom, leadership and culture is deeply tied up with your sexual desire for women. That鈥檚 the piece 迟丑补迟鈥檚 missing for men in straight culture. In fact, the opposite is largely true: Many straight boys and men are raised to constantly signal their heterosexuality so nobody thinks they鈥檙e gay. One way straight boys and men often do that, aside from objectifying women, is to distance themselves from intimacy with women. Because being too close to women paradoxically raises questions about their masculinity. So 迟丑补迟鈥檚 another thread in this book 鈥� this weird paradox in heterosexual masculinity that men can want to fuck women to signal their heterosexuality, but it raises questions about his sexuality if he actually respects women, listens to them speak, shows interest in films centering on women鈥檚 characters or reads books with women protagonists. 

I鈥檓 trying to flip that script and say, if you鈥檙e so straight, how much do you really like women? Show us the receipts!

As a gay man, I was delighted by your call to 58 queer-identified colleagues and friends, asking them to answer two questions: 1) Do you prefer the company of queer people over straight people?; and 2) Is there anything about straight culture you find sad or off-putting? I was struck by the empathy in their responses.

There was a lot of sadness and concern, which is why I talk about the importance of queer people being allies to straight people. We鈥檙e told that it鈥檚 so difficult and lonely to be queer, but the more you really dig into heteronormativity and what it looks like once the wedding day is over, it can be deeply isolating. Queer subculture encourages us to stay politically engaged well beyond college and to maintain connection to queer life. That鈥檚 why we go out to gay and lesbian bars regularly well into adulthood. Whereas, there鈥檚 this narrative in straight culture to party it up when you鈥檙e young, but then once you get married, you settle down and move to the suburbs and your whole life becomes your family. There鈥檚 so much pressure to marry and have kids that it can be a deeply predictable experience because everybody鈥檚 following the same script.

Many of the queer people I spoke to referenced straight culture appearing 鈥渟uffocating鈥� and 鈥渟oul killing.鈥� Moments that are supposed to mark important rites of passage in straight people鈥檚 lives and the rituals they use to celebrate these things 鈥� , wedding receptions, gender reveal parties 鈥� are all so scripted that many of us queers feel pity about the dullness of it all. 

Unsurprisingly, then, 鈥渂oring鈥� was a through line in many of the responses. Why do queers find straight people to be so basic?

It has to do with sexual normativity. For the most part, straight culture is very invested in the gender binary and pretty rigid gender norms around masculinity and femininity. Most queer people have grown pretty tired of those. I have normative gender, but I think of my gender in terms of being a fem top or a feminist dyke. There鈥檚 a lot of complexity to how I understand my femininity that makes me feel like it鈥檚 something I鈥檝e cultivated, not something that I was born with. Therefore, I can play with it, change it and articulate it in as many different ways as I want. There鈥檚 a gajillion examples of this in gay male subculture, including the hanky code and .

What can straight people learn from this? 

They could start by asking each other what they鈥檙e into sexually, instead of assuming that their genitals alone determined whether it鈥檚 going to be a good fuck. Maybe then guys would know whether a woman was more of a top or a bottom and what sex acts she was into, or whether she even wants to be fucked. Maybe she only wants him to go down on her. All of that stuff is already baked into the mix for queer people. Which really helps, not just with making sure that we have good sex, but also with communication, negotiation and consent. And so, there鈥檚 less faking. Straight women do a lot of faking to please men. 

Which brings us back to why it鈥檚 boring: We鈥檝e seen the script play itself out in all of our straight friends鈥� lives, we鈥檝e seen it on television, we鈥檝e seen it in reality television and we鈥檙e just so tired of it.

Many straight people will likely take issue with your framing: 鈥渢he misery of heterosexuality.鈥� You鈥檝e received some really ugly feedback, too. 

You鈥檝e just gotta love the , because it always responds to feminist writing by saying some variation of, 鈥淭here鈥檚 no such thing as misogyny, you fucking cunt whore, you should die!鈥� I鈥檝e received dozens of emails from men who think I should lose my job, and how dare I even have a PhD when I鈥檓 corrupting young people and ruining the world. None of these men has actually read this book, of course, they just read the title, which seems to be very triggering for them. Several suggested that they wished I鈥檇 been aborted, which was interesting because I imagine many of these men are pro-life. Maybe if you鈥檙e pro-life, though, 迟丑补迟鈥檚 like the greatest insult or something, I don鈥檛 know. 

You offer a remarkable history of the roots of straight misery. Early in the 20th century, some sexologists said that marriage was synonymous with sexual violence. Can you speak to that time 鈥� how women often considered men鈥檚 bodies 鈥渞epulsive鈥� and were driven mad on their wedding night? 

Some even committed suicide. Surprisingly, the earliest marriage self-help books were published by the Eugenics Publishing Company in the 1910s as part of white supremacist projects trying to keep white marriages together so that people who were believed to be of good genetic stock would continue to reproduce. 

The presumption at the time was that people married for primarily pragmatic economic reasons. It was a patriarchal system in which men would marry women not because they actually loved women or even liked women, but because women were property and essentially servants to men. They were also the only way men could have male heirs to whom they could pass on their possessions; so it was necessary to partner with women. But no one expected men to like their wives, or for women to like their husbands.

These books describe in detail a mutual loathing and repulsion and almost prison-like conditions of marriage, and they were struggling to figure out how to repair this. Physicians and sexologists knew they needed to somehow bridge the gap between men and women, because if they didn鈥檛, men would continue to brutalize women and rape them on their wedding night, which was a threat to marriage. So they come up with a series of recommendations, some of which carry through to 21st-century marital self-help books like Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, which is that straight couples should basically fake it till they make it. Women should recognize that men鈥檚 brutality, violence and disregard for their wives is a biological impulse, so they must give men space. And men should realize that their marriage won鈥檛 be sustained unless they provide a degree of gentleness with women. 

That call for sympathy seems to really pick up in the mid-century self-help books, right?

Absolutely. At that time, the presumption is that men are going out into the paid labor force and are just exhausted from having jobs. So that when they come home, the wife must understand that there shall be no noise and no distraction. She shouldn鈥檛 even talk to him; she should just have his food ready. She should always look beautiful, the house should be clean and the children should be tidy because anything could potentially set this man off. The focus mid-century is on giving women a checklist of duties to help their fragile male partners. The public sphere was such a harsh and difficult realm that men deserved a tremendous amount of respect and gratitude from women simply for having jobs. 

These rigid gender responsibilities were affirmed in television shows of the day like The Honeymooners and I Love Lucy, in which a mutual dislike among married couples is on display. Ralph threatens to hit Alice in nearly every episode of , and Ricky actually spanks Lucy in  until she cries in two episodes. The running joke at the time was how little married couples actually liked each other, especially how irritated the husband was at the sound of his wife鈥檚 constant yammering.  would become an exemplar of this in the 1980s, the conceit being how much Al Bundy deeply hated his wife.

Meanwhile,  begins publishing in 1952, which speaks directly to men鈥檚 desire for being free of these claustrophobic relationships. 

Playboy comes along and is so popular in part because it鈥檚 speaking to the heterosexual misery that men are experiencing. We primarily think of it as providing nude images of women that men can gaze upon, but it did much more than that. It created a social environment where men could be part of a community of readers who shared a sense that they鈥檇 lost a freedom that men crave, and that their wife was an old ball and chain and their children were a drag. Men could escape into the pages of Playboy, where it was possible to drink martinis while entertaining different young women. In this fantasy universe, compulsory heterosexuality wasn鈥檛 bearing down on men quite so heavily.

Skipping ahead to the 1990s, Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus seems to cement this notion that men and women are so different that they might as well be from different planets. 

It was the No. 1 best-selling non-fiction book of the entire 1990s, translated into multiple languages and sold millions of copies around the world. That鈥檚 significant when you pay attention to the book鈥檚 message, which was that men and women don鈥檛 naturally like each other. Thus, the best that they can do is learn a set of tricks and manipulations that will get them what they want in the context of the transaction 迟丑补迟鈥檚 heterosexual marriage. Men were taught to touch women 10 times a day because women crave affection. Women were taught to express gratitude every time a man takes the trash out or pays a bill because men thrive on the feeling that they鈥檙e needed. 

And yet, I think one of the reasons people loved the book is that it effectively circumvented feminism by saying, 鈥淚 hear that you鈥檙e miserable and this isn鈥檛 working, but you don鈥檛 have to take a feminist route. You can adopt a bio-essentialist argument that men and women are two different kinds of human beings who don鈥檛 share a common language or common interest, but have to come together in partnership nonetheless. Here are different tricks of the trade, and if you memorize them and use them, they鈥檙e going to work.鈥� That was very appealing to people. 

Then, in the early aughts, the message changes slightly. For instance, in 鈥檚 2002 book, Why Men Love Bitches: From Doormat to Dreamgirl 鈥� A Woman鈥檚 Guide to Holding Her Own in a Relationship, she presents three words 鈥済uaranteed鈥� to turn any man on: 鈥淵ou are right.鈥� Sounds familiar, no?

It鈥檚 not a change in the content by any means, and reverts back to strategies of the 1950s when women were directed to double down on subservience. What鈥檚 different in the 21st century, though, is it gets marketed to women as a kind of 鈥済irl boss鈥� strategy that wise women can use to manipulate men. It鈥檚 sold to women as a savvy, innovative new way of manipulating men by pretending they have the power when in fact you have the power. But it鈥檚 just a merging of women鈥檚 subservience that was the dominant paradigm in the 1950s and the performativity of Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. It鈥檚 brought together in this notion that a smart bitch knows how to manipulate a man by telling him what he wants to hear, even when she doesn鈥檛 actually believe it.

Which brings us to today, when people like  give women permission to . 

Yes, she does. There are a number of books like that, that suggest women should just disinvest in men, kind of a 鈥渉oes before bros鈥� sort of argument 鈥� let鈥檚 bunch together as women because we actually have each other鈥檚 backs. And yet, women continue to return to men. What鈥檚 missing that we have in the queer community is ethical polyamorous or ethical non-monogamous frameworks that women could use to help maneuver the complexities of opting out of heteronormative marriage. And so, these women, they鈥檙e aspiring for something. I understand the impulse, but I think there鈥檚 not any guidebook that they have available to them to truly opt out.

Meanwhile, on the men鈥檚 side,  (MGTOW),  and  start to crop up. How does the rise of the manosphere fit into all of this? 

At one end of the continuum, you have MGTOW, men who鈥檝e decided that women aren鈥檛 worth it and so they鈥檙e 鈥済oing their own way,鈥� disinvesting in heteronormativity. They鈥檙e only going to have sex with sex workers and otherwise wash their hands of life with women. These men feel that heterosexuality has changed so dramatically that now women have all of the power, leaving men without access to the sex they feel entitled to by birth. On the other end of the continuum is pickup artists, who approach this problem by learning a set of seduction techniques to be more successful with women. Men in this movement often feel like failures and believe their lot in life is their responsibility because they never learned how to attract women. 

滨鈥檝别&苍产蝉辫;, observing pickup artist bootcamps and seen men crying about their first girlfriend abandoning them, or how they were a virgin into their 30s, or just feel deficient because they don鈥檛 know what鈥檚 wrong with them. And I sympathize with them. They鈥檙e often socially awkward or immigrant men who feel like they haven鈥檛 mastered American gender norms. Others are just unattractive men, or men who feel they can鈥檛 compete. The problem with these men isn鈥檛 that they can鈥檛 find women who want to have sex with them, but that they鈥檙e not attracted to women who are attracted to them. Over and over I鈥檇 hear them say, 鈥淭he women who are attracted to me are older, divorced, have kids and are a little chubby.鈥� I鈥檓 looking at these men and 迟丑补迟鈥檚 exactly who they are, too! And yet, they find it repulsive in a woman. Almost exclusively, these men want young, skinny blondes. So it鈥檚 not that there aren鈥檛 women available, these men just have a very narrow fantasy about what鈥檚 desirable.

Are there any groups within the manosphere doing positive things?

 perhaps, a growing wing of the seduction industry in which you can pay $20,000 to go on an extended bootcamp that involves travel to various cities. They鈥檙e about the 鈥渢otal man.鈥� When you pay for the Project Rockstar experience, you get a fashion consultant, a financial planner and a personal trainer. All the while, you鈥檙e also being trained in the 鈥済ame,鈥� or how to seduce women. What brings men to Project Rockstar is a desire to access 鈥渂etter鈥� women, and they imagine financial success, better fashion and a more fit body are all a means to that particular end. https://www.youtube.com/embed/vN49VnJRLic?feature=oembed

But the message has also evolved from traditional pickup artist teaching. Trainers in Project Rockstar are millennial men who are very in tune with what鈥檚 happening in the broader cultural environment. They offer 鈥渆mergency webinars鈥� on how men should be thinking about the #MeToo Movement and how men should be thinking about toxic masculinity: How can they seduce women without being perceived as a creep? To answer this question, they almost adopt a pop feminist line, which is that if men are paying enough attention to what women want and are firmly rooted in their natural, chivalrous protective masculinity, they鈥檒l be able to seduce women in a way that women find pleasurable. Since they believe straight women naturally crave men鈥檚 leadership and protection, they鈥檙e simply offering them what they really want.

Is this a net positive then?

It鈥檚 better, because it鈥檚 training men to think about women鈥檚 experience in the world. They spend a lot of time trying to get men to put themselves in women鈥檚 shoes, explaining that it鈥檚 not that women at the club are bitches, it鈥檚 that they鈥檝e been approached by 20 different creepy dudes so they鈥檝e got their bitch shield up, and 迟丑补迟鈥檚 what you鈥檙e experiencing. Rather than being angry about that, you should feel empathy for them, and learn how to work around it by bonding with that woman instead of being yet another one of the creepy dudes. 

But it remains a transaction, trading empathy with women for sex. None of these men are doing it because they believe in the inherent value of gender equality or women鈥檚 sexual autonomy and self-determination, they鈥檙e doing it because they have trainers who鈥檝e told them this is the way that you鈥檙e going to distinguish yourself from other men. So it鈥檚 just creating opportunities for a little more identification and communication between men and women, not challenging the logic of misogyny at all. 

Still, I鈥檒l take it. Sometimes we have to move incrementally or developmentally. Sometimes when I鈥檓 teaching I鈥檒l appeal to straight men and say, 鈥淵鈥檏now what makes for really good sex? Consent. If you want to have sex with a woman who鈥檚 hungry for that dick, you have to have a personal investment in figuring out how to have feminist sex, because feminist sex is hotter sex.鈥� 

Speaking of feminist sex, given that way more lesbians than straight women report having orgasms during sex, how does the tragedy of heterosexuality extend to the bedroom? 

The very definition of straight sex is organized around what men want and their desires. In straight culture, the preferred shape and sensations of a vagina is based on the experience of a penetrative penis rather than the experience of the vagina itself. The emphasis is on having a tight vagina, whereas 迟丑补迟鈥檚 just not a thing in lesbian culture. In fact, it鈥檚 sort of the opposite: We celebrate a size queen, someone who can really get a lot in there! 

Heterosexual sex is a male invention, designed by and for men, and 迟丑补迟鈥檚 how it plays out in most straight people鈥檚 sexual relationships. What would it look like to think of straight sex from the perspective of women? I have a sociologist friend, , who suggests starting a lesbian sex challenge for straight couples, which would be 30 days of no dick-involved sex.

What鈥檚 your final piece of advice to straight men? 

Attraction to women doesn鈥檛 have to be based on oppositeness. It can be based on deep identification, intimacy and mutual respect. Once 迟丑补迟鈥檚 cultivated at home, it can extend more broadly to feminist men鈥檚 organizations and friendship among feminist men. When all of those pieces come together, men can start to see that their sexual orientation is already political, and that being a straight man means making a commitment to women, not just to their wives and daughters, but to womankind as a whole.

For many parents, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is a shadow that hangs over the early period of infancy, contributing to broken sleep for caregivers who hover watchfully over their baby鈥檚 crib. Unfortunately, in the journal JAMA Pediatrics reports that deaths attributed to the broader category of Sudden Unexpected Infant Death (SUID) increased between 2020 to 2022. SUID is an umbrella category that includes SIDS, as well as other causes of unexpected death during sleep that are labeled as undetermined or accidental suffocation. While overall infant mortality rates have declined, deaths from SUID rose from 89.9 to 100.5 per 100,000. Does this mean that all parents should be equally worried about their infant鈥檚 risk of sleep-related infant death? While SIDS is at its core unexplained, a broader analysis of infant sleep safety reveals the racial disproportionality among infants who suffer from sleep-related infant death. A closer look at the data points to the structural and systemic roots of this public health problem.

If you are pregnant or parenting an infant or young child, you have likely encountered guidance on infant sleep safety鈥攁t the most basic, that infants should be placed to sleep on their backs rather than their stomachs. If you received more detailed safe sleep education from an 鈥渁uthoritative鈥� source, whether a parenting book, a pediatrician, or online, it may have included the guidance that infants should sleep on a flat surface like a crib, in the same room but not the same bed as an adult, and without objects such as blankets, pillows, or stuffed animals. These are developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics with the goal of preventing SUID. 

Because this guidance promotes safer sleep for all infants, many parents receive it as if all infants are at equal risk for SUID. However, as the recent JAMA Pediatrics research letter reinforces, SUID rates are 鈥渘otably higher鈥� for Black, American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander infants than for white or Asian infants. From 2018-2022, American Indian or Alaskan Native infants were roughly 2.8 times likelier to die from SUID than white infants, and Black babies died at a rate 3.1 times higher than white babies. The article cites several potential causes for this racial disproportionality, including unsafe sleep position, tobacco exposure, and infant feeding practices. It also notes that preterm birth is higher among the same groups at higher risk of SUID; this is relevant given that pre-term birth is also a risk factor for sleep-related infant death. 

As I argue in my book Losing Sleep: Risk, Responsibility, and Infant Sleep Safety, the factors that put infants and mothers at risk for pre-term birth, and later SUID, are deeply tied to structural racism and systemic poverty. For example, the JAMA Pediatrics research letter notes that decreased prenatal care and weathering from stress both contribute to pre-term birth. 鈥淲eathering,鈥� a term coined by public health researcher refers to the cumulative effects of the stress of racism on the body, with dire consequences for Black maternal and infant mortality. The stress of poverty is also frequently implicated in premature birth and its correlative, low birth weight. However, anthropologist Dana-Ain Davis makes the important corrective that for Black women, education and income do not protect against this negative birth outcome the same way they do for white women. These structural issues require collective solutions, but attention and resources are often unequally distributed towards individual-level behavioral change. 

For example, a recent New York Times article titled 鈥淎 Troubling Spike in Sleep-Related Infant Deaths鈥� creates a false distinction between factors that they deem 鈥渂eyond parents鈥� control鈥� (premature birth or illness) and what they call 鈥減otentially preventable risks (breastfeeding and providing a safe sleep environment). are stratified by race and class in the United States, with low-income Black women less likely to begin breastfeeding and to maintain it for economic and social reasons. As I explore further in Losing Sleep, the other 鈥減otentially preventable risk鈥濃�攑roviding a safe sleep environment鈥攊s also racialized. Attempts to eliminate 鈥渦nsafe sleep鈥� practices like bed-sharing often target the individual behavior of parents of color rather than the systemic causes of high Black infant mortality. 

The increase in SUID rates is a troubling trend for a vexing public health issue, and it should inspire a renewed focus on the structural causes of infant mortality, as well as safe sleep educational practices that are led by the communities most affected. A focus on individual responsibility for infant sleep safety suggests that all parents should be equally fearful of SIDS, rather than directing collective action toward improving the health of marginalized populations, including pregnant people. 

Laura Harrison is a Professor in the Department of History & Gender Studies at Minnesota State University, Mankato. She is the author of Losing Sleep: Risk, Responsibility, and Infant Sleep Safety 补苍诲听Brown Bodies, White Babies: The Politics of Cross-Racial Surrogacy.

Deviant Matter delves into a vast archive that includes nineteenth-century medical and scientific writing; newspaper comic strips and early film; the Food and Drug Act of 1906; the literature of Martin Delany, Louisa May Alcott and Herman Melville; and twenty-first century queer minoritarian video, installation, and performance art. In this excerpt, Tompkins explores the representation of jelly in Snowpiercer.

Early in the 2013 film Snowpiercer, we watch a small mass of people鈥攄irty, shabby, and imprisoned in a train car鈥攚aiting to be fed, being counted by armed guards. Part of the survivors of a failed global attempt to remedy global warming, the prisoners inhabit the rear carriage of a train that perpetually circles a frozen planet, waiting, it is implied, for the ice to thaw. There is much to be said about the apocalyptic imagery of the film鈥攊magery that is no longer merely symbolic but that sits rather close to the real of the current planetary crisis. But what I would like to pay attention to here is one of the tiniest and most evocative details of this whole, ravishing film: the food of the prisoners of the last train carriage. These prisoners, designated as the lowest rung of the hierarchy that has emerged on the train, eat blocks of gelatin.

Dark brown and gold, uniform in size and shape, the gelatin blocks shake and catch the light as the prisoners of the back carriage hold and eat them, while they walk in circles, carceral imagery that is in loose imitation of an exercise walk around a prison yard. The blocks are equally repulsive and mesmerizing. But it is not until slightly later in the film, when the prisoners finally break through to a forward carriage, that the fully abject implications of the gelatin blocks become apparent: for seventeen years, the members of the rear car have been eating pulverized and gelatinized cockroaches. The scene in which the cockroaches are revealed makes that fact haptically felt by having the protagonist, Curtis (Chris Evans), and the character called Painter (Clark Middleton) open up and look into the large vats in which the cockroaches are ground up. Painter first cries out in shock; when Curtis follows Painter up some stairs to look inside the vat, he grasps the edges, bends toward the insects, and peers into the vat. Recoiling almost immediately and turning away, he exhales and inhales quickly, covering his mouth with his hand and then with his fist, seeming to almost gag, to fight to hold back his vomit, to force himself not to exhibit his physiological response.

The sensory effect of Curtis鈥檚 view of the thousands of cockroaches roiling about in the vat is emphasized by a swell in the rock music that accompanies the scene plus the unexpected color pop鈥攖hat particular mix of cockroachy brown and warm gold鈥攊n a film that up until that point has been dominated by gray and blue tones as well as by the total absence of anything that resembles nature. The cockroaches are circulated and mashed by the rolling corkscrew gears; they are fervid, active, hot in color and film tone, technically quite an amazing display of CGI virtuosity. They flutter their wings and fly around and up out of the vat. What is inside the vat, I want to posit, is life: vital life, energized and roiling and active, the energy of a disposable species鈥攁vailable to be converted into pure sustenance for humans whose social value so clearly equals their own. In a world in which eating is devoid of aesthetic pleasure (indeed, one character upon receiving his protein bar wonders longingly about what steak must have smelled like while it was being cooked), we are beyond or below鈥攐r perhaps, in the terms of the train, at the rear鈥攐f the hierarchical relations that make possible a notion of taste as aesthetic discernment; instead, the cockroach bars fully anatomize the rear-car inhabitants鈥� status as human refuse. As in the plantation, the border camp, the prison, we are in the realm of survival, of zoe, or bare life itself.

Snowpiercer forces us to think about how the rendering of animal waste is a cultural practice within which the politics of trash鈥攁nd capitalism鈥檚 genius move to repurpose trash into more efficient and vertically integrated profit models鈥攋oins the question of the animal to the ordering of the species. This joining includes, as Foucault wrote, vis-脿-vis sexual deviance, the 鈥渟ub-species鈥� of humans so ordered. My argument here is that 厂苍辞飞辫颈别谤肠别谤鈥檚 use of gelatin as poor people鈥檚 food is not casual by any means, either historically or, as I will now discuss, aesthetically. While the nineteenth century saw the application of theories of thermodynamics to consumable materials in order to develop the notion of the calorie, early nineteenth-century scientists, including Claude Bernard and Liebig, experimented on themselves, on living animals, and on patients to try to understand how the human machine worked. In particular, they wanted to quantify the 鈥渘itrogenic,鈥� or nourishing, qualities of food; they sought, among other things, to determine how much gelatin could be mechanically extracted from underused animal flesh and bones with the specific aim of discovering whether gelatin could be used to feed the poor and the ill. The scientific history of both of these technologies can be traced further backward to the period after the Napoleonic Wars, when the French Academie Scientifique convened a Committee on the Status of Gelatin to study emergent food technologies鈥攏ewly separated as 鈥渟cience鈥� from their traditional social location as 鈥渃raft鈥濃�攕uch as the extraction of gelatin and bouillon from meat and bones. For over three decades, from 1803 to 1841, several incarnations of the committee studied various methods for extracting all possible nutritive value from meat and bones, ultimately concluding that gelatin could not sustain life as a cheap meat alternative. This work received a great deal of French state support, and the news of the gelatin commission鈥檚 work reached the United States through newspaper bulletins and scientific lectures.

Gelatin thus has a complex history tied both to waste management and to the management of the poor. Keeping this in mind, I now want to turn to the question of the gelatinous as a materiality that might also bring its correspondence with the material conditions of the poor, the enslaved, and the working class into sharper relief. More precisely, how might we think through political affect, particularly minoritarian political affect, in relation to the gelatinous?

Read more in Deviant Matter: Ferment, Intoxicants, Jelly, and Rot

Kyla Wazana Tompkins is Professor and Chair of Global Gender and Sexuality Studies at the University at Buffalo, and Professor of English at Pomona College. She is the author of Racial Indigestion: Eating Bodies in the Nineteenth Century and managing editor of Keywords for Gender and Sexuality Studies. She is the winner of numerous book awards; in 2023, she won a James Beard Award for her essay 鈥淥n Boba,鈥� published in the Los Angeles Review of Books.

The poetry and stories in this work, excerpted below, cover court life, love affairs, gruesome murders, miracles, debauched parties, and much more. Through these accounts, al-Sh膩busht墨 offers readers a glimpse into the splendor of Abbasid culture, and meditates on the ephemerality of power, the virtues of generosity and tolerance, and the fleeting nature of pleasure and beauty.

Another story of Ja岣メ簱ah鈥檚: I was in love with a singing girl called Sharw墨n. One
night she got drunk at my house and shat in my dipper and spittoon before she
left. Al-Hud膩hid墨 wrote to me:

I had a visitor, a dear friend,
a fine character wise in his ways.
Now you owe it to Sharw墨n, who shat
in the dipper, the bowl, and the jug.
Hurry and visit, dropping excuses and delays,
and I鈥檒l see you as drunk as she,
Making a mess on the rug.

Ja岣メ簱ah sent an invitation to Ibn Tarkh膩n:
My friend, we鈥檝e food aplenty
and a pot bubbling away,
As much good talk as you like,
and an endless supply of jokes.
The wine, when poured, is like
a lightning flash on a rainy night.
Our singer鈥檚 a mistress of modes;
the flute player is superb.
I don鈥檛 know where my heart鈥檚 gone; it鈥檚 not in its place.
My bosom has driven it out; it鈥檚 caught fire and now is ablaze.

The Foxes鈥� Monastery is the home of the errant,
a place to meet gazelle-like boys and girls.
Oft have I spent there a night with my friend,
pouring wine into cups, skillfully watered,
Yielding its spirit freely till the last drop ran out.
I forgave it then and paid more than I owed.
For a sweet young follower of Mary鈥檚 Son,
flirtatious, wanton, yet at times coy,
I poured wine, then sipped the dregs of his glass,
and had in my mouth the taste of nectar.
Ibn Dihq膩nah was a descendant of Ibr膩h墨m ibn Mu岣mmad ibn 士Al墨 ibn
士Abdall膩h ibn 士Abb膩s. His given name was Ab奴 Ja士far Mu岣mmad ibn 士Umar.
He is the author of fine poetry, such as these verses, which Ja岣メ簱ah recalled him reciting to him:
Ha! When I came between you and your friends
and showered you with gifts, ever generous,
You played me false and treated me harshly,
acting the tyrant, doing me wrong.
Why should I want the conclusion of your love
when you showed no respect for its beginning?

Here am I, eager to please you, long-suffering,
as if grasping a bright double-edged sword,
Eschewing what you loathe, and
willing to give up my eyes just to satisfy you.
What joy I knew, and what sorrow
when suspicion of you entered my mind.
If the heart reveals one thing and conceals another,
its true feelings the eyes will betray.

He heaves the deepest of sighs,
Stays awake when others are nodding,
Utters moans when drowsy or dozing,
Feeds his mind with longing,
Gives himself hope with 鈥淧erhaps鈥濃��
A lover who鈥檚 turned his plaint
Into friendship with his fellows.

Bring on the wine, for the cup flows over,
brimming with pangs of nostalgia.
I delight to hear Jerusalem鈥檚 monks
answering each other after night鈥檚 silence.
They鈥檝e roused grief and sorrow in me as I remember
Karkh of Iraq, and my good friends there.
As the tears well up in my eyes and longing
strikes fire in my heart and burns,
I cry, 鈥淒ayr Mudy膩n, as long as you rouse lovesickness,
may you always be peopled, Dayr Mudy膩n.鈥�
Does your priest know鈥攁nd can he tell me鈥�
how acceptance can bring joy to one who鈥檚 left you?
May rain and prosperity bless Karkh膩y膩 and its people
who dwell between the mill and the garden.

    It is reported that Ab奴 士Al墨 ibn al-Rash墨d would constantly go to this monastery to drink. He
took singing girls there, and would listen to music and carouse for days. He was utterly
shameless, and those who lived in the neighborhood complained of the nuisance he caused.
Is岣ツ乹 ibn Ibr膩h墨m al-峁乭ir墨,who was the representative of the authorities in Baghdad, came to
hear of it. He sent a message to Ab奴 士Al墨, rebuking him for his behavior and forbidding him from committing the same offence again. Ab奴 士Al墨 burst out, 鈥淎nd what authority has Is岣ツ乹 over me? How can he order me about? Will he be able to stop me listening to my singing girls and drinking where I like?鈥�

This is a poem by Ab奴 l-Shibl on a black slave girl he was in love with. This
earned him many rebukes but he was crazy about black girls.

A scold has fired her full stock of rebuke at me,
blaming me about duskiness and ink-black eyes.
Damn it, how can I be consoled for pearls
with pitch-black faces like small shells.
Between their thighs they have mounds
where the hair burns with the fire of hell.
May God torment no other believer with them,
or cause my organ to wither.
For I鈥檓 mad about black; white women leave me cold.

He had a black slave girl he loved who was called Tibr.

You鈥檝e treated me unfairly, namesake of gold,
you鈥檙e killing my soul just for fun.
You鈥檙e the cousin of strong-scented musk,
but for you who鈥檇 gather it鈥攊t would be scentless.
In blackness and perfume, musk鈥檚 your kin!
What a splendid kinship!

Ma峁Ｄ乥墨岣�, the slave of al-A岣ab, the dealer in singing girls, used to sing this
song and many other compositions by 士Abdall膩h. She was the main transmit-
ter of his poetry and most knowledgeable about his settings. She was known
for her beauty and her fine performances, and 士Abdall膩h loved her. One of his
poems that she sang was:

Friends, on Palm Sunday,
pour me old wine from Kark墨n
With someone I love,
though her religion鈥檚 not mine.

Here are verses 士Abdall膩h composed on Ma峁Ｄ乥墨岣� and set to music. He
sang them in her presence and she learned them from him. Mutayyam
al-Hish膩miyyah also sang them.

I鈥檝e fallen in love with a foe. May God shower blessings on my foe.
My kith and kin and my neighbors鈥擨鈥檇 ransom their lives for her.
She鈥檚 firm and upright as cane, but bend her and she鈥檒l yield.
Sure of the love in my heart, now she鈥檚 all flirtation.

Ab奴 l-士Ayn膩示 passed 士Abdall膩h ibn Man峁Ｅ玶鈥檚 house one day. He asked his servant, 鈥淲hat鈥檚 the news of Ab奴 Mu岣mmad?鈥� 鈥淗e鈥檚 just as you would wish,鈥� he replied. 鈥淭hen why don鈥檛 I hear the house full of the wails of the bereaved?鈥�

Ab奴 l-士Ayn膩示 related: A woman in Basra fell in love with me without seeing me. She had
simply heard how well I expressed myself. When she saw me, she thought I was ugly and said,
鈥淕od damn! Is this him?鈥� So I wrote to her:

She heard about me but snubbed me on sight, 
saying, 鈥淯gly, squinting, with a miserable body!鈥�
Maybe you don鈥檛 like my squint, 
but I鈥檓 cultured and clever,
Not a fuddy-duddy or a stuttering dolt.
She wrote on the back of the letter: 鈥淵ou motherfucker, did you think I wanted to give you a job in the chancery?鈥�

鈥淚 said to 士Ubba虅dah once, 鈥楥an a queer exist without debauchery?鈥� 鈥榊es,鈥� he answered, 鈥榖ut he won鈥檛 be any fun. He鈥檒l be like a judge without a vice.鈥欌��

A literary tour of Christian monasteries of the medieval Middle East

The Book of Monasteries聽takes readers on a tour of the monasteries of the Middle East by presenting the rich variety of poetry and prose associated with each monastery. Starting with Baghdad, readers are taken up the Tigris into the mountains of south-eastern Anatolia before moving to Palestine and Syria, along the Euphrates down to the old Christian center of 岣つ玶ah and onward to Egypt. For the literary anthologist al-Sh膩busht墨, who was Muslim, monasteries were important sites of interactions with Christian communities that made up about half the population of the Abbasid Empire at the time. Translated into English for the first time,聽The Book of Monasteries聽offers an entertaining panorama of religious, political, and literary life during the Abbasid era.