Men and their Meat
The number of people across the world following a plant-based diet is currently at an all-time high – and rising. Surprisingly however, global meat consumption is also at an all-time high– and is expected to increase exponentially over the next few decades. Given that reducing meat-consumption has been scientifically proven to be a uniquely impactful way of targeting pollution levels, environmental harm, and health complications, the simultaneous move towards and away from meat is gaining traction, from psychological, social, and cultural standpoints.
Gender is considered to be an important factor in representing these differences. Women make up a much larger proportion of vegetarians and vegans – in a global survey on meatless diets from 2014, including 11,000 people, only 26% were men. Women are also more likely to be concerned for animal rights and welfare. Animals’ rights have even been called “women’s work.” It cannot be ignored, as a partial explanation at least, that femininity is linked to greater empathetic and affective concern– qualities that often extend to animals and other living things. There is scientific evidence supporting this too, showing that empathetic capacity and response may actually be lower in males than females, neurobiologically, evolutionarily, and socially. Perhaps men’s natural inclination not to feel as much concern and empathy for animals explains them being less inclined to want to stop eating them.
That being said, most people do, on some level, have affection for animals. Even the toughest never-cried-before man can still go weak at the knees for a puppy. But there is a clear contrast between their feelings (love or empathy) and their behaviour (eating them). The way women and men deal with this cognitive dissonance seems, on average, to be distinguishable. A recent study looked at males and females’ attachment to meat, in the context of making the link between meat products and their animal origin apparent. Participants were exposed to a pig whilst viewing pork, for example. The researchers found there to be a distinct response between the two groups: women seemed less attached to meat-eating after the experiment, whereas men presented even more attachment to meat-eating. It seems that once women are confronted with the reality of their behaviour (eating meat actually harms animals), they are much less able to justify it. Simultaneously, it suggests that when men’s meat-eating behaviour is threatened by an awareness of it, they respond by defensively increasing their meat-eating attitudes.
To watch this phenomenon in action, just take a look at the comment section on any Tiktok of a particularly cute or clever farm animal and see the difference in how men and women respond. Women appear to take a more emotional line, expressing regret for eating these animals, and even declaring their intention to stop eating them. On the other hand, men are more likely to reiterate and highlight that they still view them as meat. This could explain why the current expansion of veganism, and increased consciousness for animal rights and environmental concerns, has not led to behaviour changes in everyone. For a lot of men, it does the opposite.
Pairing men’s stronger attachment to meat eating with the fragility of masculinity and the result is that men are more likely to feel that their identity is being threatened by the rise of plant-based foods in supermarkets and increased advocacy for people to detach from meat consumption. The rigidity of masculine norms creates pressure on young boys from a young age, and is empirically linked with negative outcomes, such as anxiety, assault, and aggression. Men are much more likely to be denied social acceptance from their relevant social group (other men) if they deviate from what is considered “normal” for men to do. When confronted with a threat to their masculinity, they are likely to engage in compensatory and stereotypical behaviours that reinforce their belonging and gender status. Eating meat, among many other things, is considered a norm. Men are much more likely to justify their meat-eating by calling it “normal”, but also necessary, natural, and nice – the 4Ns. Indeed, throughout history and across borders, meat has long been associated with strength and manhood. Especially red meat, which is consumed much more by men than women, but is also more strongly associated with masculinity. In literature, art, and advertisements – a man’s relationship with his burger or a steak is a familiar one.
In one of the first pieces of research to scientifically examine the link between sexual politics and meat consumption, it was theorised that men eat meat so adamantly and proudly because eating meat makes them feel like “real men.” In fact, the more a man is affiliated with traditional male roles, the more attached he is to eating meat.
When confronted with reasons for eating meat, men are more likely to engage in responses such as denying animal pain, highlighting the necessity of animal meat for health, and beyond this, expressing the idea of human dominance over animals. This concept should sound familiar. Interestingly, this idea of human dominance – or speciesism – has been consistently associated with other forms of dominance, such as male dominance over women, and ethnic group dominance over another. Individuals, regardless of gender, who align with the ideals of speciesism are found to be much more likely to hold right-wing political attitudes, as well as ethnic prejudice and discrimination.
In feminist theory, male dominance over women and the act of eating meat has been considered as “intertwined modes of oppression that work to objectify, fragment, and consume both women and animals as ‘absent referents.’”. The associations made between women and meat for the male gaze are widespread across society, embedded in Western culture (“She’s a piece of ass” – Donald Trump). Paraphrasing the words of the ex-president, who was talking about his wife: “She’s a piece of meat.” In advertising, women have been connected to meat for decades – in one particular advert for a Chicken Shop, the graphics of a chicken humanised to look like a sexually-appealing woman read “Chick it Out.” Clearly, this is targeted towards one demographic and one demographic only: the straight male.
Despite this body of research linking masculinity and meat eating, there is an increasing number of men who are choosing to adopt plant-based diets. In 2018, a documentary called The Game Changers showcased successful and well-known athletes who exclusively ate plant-based food for optimal performance. The documentary challenged the widely accepted notion that animal protein is necessary for muscle growth and fitness progress. Although deemed controversial, the scientific evidence they provided not only showed the adequacy of plant-based diets for athletes, but suggested they may even yield better results than animal-protein based diets.
Notably, many of the men from the documentary explain their seemingly out-of-the-norms choice to avoid meat by describing it in terms of the ways plant-based diets still benefit, in some way, the notion of masculinity and its ideals. More explicitly by pointing out the ways in which it still attends to the desire or need to be strong, fit, attractive, and also be challenged mentally – which are all desirable masculine traits. Perhaps because of this, recent studies have begun to show that more and more men are opening up to the idea of plant-based diets, especially in the context of optimising fitness and athleticism.
All this being said, of course, not all men are the same, and all individuals exist on a spectrum of dimensional characteristics, rather than deterministic categories based on sex. As the impact of switching to meatless diets becomes stronger by the day, how to create openings and shifts within people’s behaviour and attitudes is necessary. Under capitalism, meat-eating and animal exploitation are so embedded in our collective consciousness that farm animals are perceived as commodities– living, sentient beings are regarded in the same way as soil, gas, and oil. Even before and beyond capitalistic ideology, gender and meat are intertwined. Liberation from toxic masculinity means more liberation for all. The more distance men create from rigid gender identity rules and roles, the more willing, and able, they would be to express more care for the world. Still, there are ongoing positive changes within the confinements of masculine norms and, by proxy, male attitudes towards plant-based diets. It seems that for campaigning for men to reduce meat consumption to be most effective, it should stray away from attacking – or threatening – what is currently still precious to masculine identity. For now, highlighting the health benefits and debunking myths about plant-based diets may be a better way of easing more men into considering the idea of not eating as much meat.
