• MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

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

      • AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.”

        • strugglingtiger@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            It’s a journal site, here’s the link to the actual study in nature. The language is tougher.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-62511-3

            I think i see where you’re coming from, to me it feels like traveling a long path from the obvious economics of subsidy and advertising, especially the ubiquity of beef, and making that about the patriarchy. Feels removed from the problem of economic incentive, but more than just access seems to drive it, this paper has multiple relevant drivers though and it does seem to be at least partially based on gender.