You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
43 points

Imagine thinking toxic masculinity is a bigger problem for this issue than beef/dairy subsidies and entrenched market forces. Nice distraction piece, NPR.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

If it’s purely on subsidies, then why, as stated in the article, are men consuming disproportionately more beef than women? Am I missing out on my secret man meat tax cut?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Yes, you’re missing that subsidies ensure the same amount of beef gets produced no matter the demand. In fact, that amount is set higher than demand. Demand is artificially increased due to the high availability and low prices resulting from these policies. Removing the subsidies would lower both Availability and Demand, as the lowered availability would increase prices.

TL;DR: Consumption gender ratios have NOTHING to do with the amount of beef that is being produced, nor, therefore, its impacts on the environment.

I can only restate the obvious so many times, and I HAVE already restated the facts on this at least twice prior to your question. Are you dense, or just insincere?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Yeah, i think that research might be missing some context…

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240618/Study-finds-men-eat-meat-more-often-than-women-especially-in-gender-equal-developed-countries.aspx

Meat consumption by males goes up when you have a developed nation, it’s almost purely economic, stupid to try to make this part of the culture war considering how small these communities are and their median ages.

“Economic factors explain the influence of human development since meat production costs are higher than plant-origin food production. Nations with more resources provide more options for individuals to buy and eat beef. The findings build on comparable studies with psychological traits and help rule out reference group effects as a possible reason.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Has anyone here ever heard of this website? News-Medical.net ? Unless it’s an actual study, and not some BS where data is cherry-picked from certain sample groups, I wouldn’t pay it any mind.

Toxic masculinity (a.k.a. patriarchy) most definitely affects men eating more meat.

Subsidies for industrial beef production greatly affects it.

But all of this is due to the lack of societal/political change.

And, in all honesty, if it was not for the pollution created by the US military and “big business”, we’d be on our 2ay to a much greener Earth already, without having to affect far more change.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Ok, but can we not acknowledge that this shit had an effect on the whole manly incel epidemic and those people are trying to take over the most poweful country on the planet and make sure those subsidies never end?

In 2006, when Malcolm Regisford was 10 years old, a Burger King commercial began playing on TVs across the country.

In it, a man in a restaurant looks at a small vegetarian dish, turns to face the camera, and bursts into song: “I am man, hear me roar!” The man flees the restaurant, denounces quiches and tofu — “chick food,” he sings — and quickly joins a throng of other singing men. They march through the streets with signs reading “I am man” and hamburgers held high. “The Texas double Whopper. Eat like a man, man,” a voice says.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Incels gave up on being “manly enough”. Their whole schtick is that its “un-fair” that “only the manliest men get laid”, and that they believe they deserve sex just for being born with a dick.

I’m not saying all the “red-pill”/“sigma-pill”/“incel” groups/narratives don’t feed into eachother, but you’ve gotta realize these people are already in the minority. It’s not their influence keeping the subsidies going, it’s the public’s wallets keeping demand just high-enough to “justify” the subsidies, and the fact that the subsidies are backed by decades of established law.

There is no point trying to reason with the die-hards that will keep on consuming long after increased prices drive the rest of us away from beef consumption. The subsidies that keep their bull-shit lifestyles affordable and convenient should be the focus of our efforts.

Let them waste more money on being single and lonely. Their pocket-books will shout at them louder and more convincingly than the rest of us ever could.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I’m not saying all the “red-pill”/“sigma-pill”/“incel” groups/narratives don’t feed into eachother, but you’ve gotta realize these people are already in the minority.

Minority or not, they are in politics and gaining power everywhere the right wing is surging and tbey are the same people in favour of all those subsidies. That said, i agree tbat the rest of the general public needs to change their consumption habits to make a real difference. I still think it’s worth pointing out the manly beef eating misogynist connection though, especially in advertising and its pernicious effects on society.

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

I honestly believe the two are related. I think big meat agro business is paying influencers to promote toxic masculinity and push nonsense like “plants emit toxic hormones” on social media.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Maybe, but that’s just to keep demand anywhere near high enough to consume the products that subsidies ensure they will be producing anyways, so they can argue that the current subsidies are necessary.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 3.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.8K

    Posts

  • 6K

    Comments

Community moderators