“…parents and relatives regarded men’s vegetarianism as a healthful demonstration of self-command. For women, in contrast, vegetarianism is unhealthy and demonstrates an inability to manage the body” (424-425)

Reference: Merriman, B. (2010). Gender differences in family and peer reaction to the adoption of a vegetarian diet. Feminism & Psychology, 20(3), 420-427.

Even though this article is the shortest article I’ve written about thus far, what it lacks in pages it certainly makes up for in useful information. Just as the title indicates, the study focuses on how the experiences of men and women differ with regards to the decision to take on a vegetarian lifestyle. As a result of interviews, the study found that men faced much less criticism for their dietary habits than women did. While at first I was surprised by this finding (especially considering the connections between meat and masculinity), after reading some of the peer responses that the researchers documented, the debate that women make decisions based on “emotions” (which is often a highly discredited) whereas men make decisions based on “reason” seemed to materialize.

It seemed to me that a good hypothesis for why women came under fire for their choices while men did not was because of the stereotype of women’s “overly sentimental” connection to non-human animals: emotional connections are simply not good enough reasons to abstain from meat, and of course as women we are only capable of approaching animal advocacy from this standpoint as opposed to an ethical one. For men, on the other hand, being rational beings by nature, there of course is no way that a man would give up meat for sentimental reasons, so it must be a sign of “maturity” (the study mentions how this was a common response by mothers to their son’s decision). This study however is only a stepping stone to uncovering this issue, and for now I can only make educated guesses based on the information presented here and what I’ve read in the past. I definitely want to do more research on the topic, and perhaps even conduct my own study in the future to obtain some comparable information.   

 Method: “In the hope of redressing the insufficient attention paid to the living practice of vegetarianism, I conducted an interview study with ethical vegetarians, asking them about social factors that have affected the adoption and maintenance of their diet” (421)

“Despite the traditional association between meat-eating and masculinity, this study revealed that men who adopted a vegetarian diet did not meet with disapproval from friends and family. Women in the study, however, were very likely to face hostile reactions, and these reported hostile reactions came exclusively from women participants’ male friends and family members” (421)

This is really interesting to me, as I would have never thought that women would be bigger targets for abuse as a result of their abstention from meat than men. Aside from the fact that this finding goes against my prior assumptions, I’m especially interested in this information because I don’t actually have any male friends or family members who are vegetarians (there are some vegetarian men that I “know of” but none that I am close with or have had any conversations about vegetarianism with). Based on my brief exposure to The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams in my Animals in Literature course, I would have certainly thought that men would have the worst time attempting to navigate their world as vegetarians. However, I know this study does not speak for everyone. I definitely need to do more research…if I can find it, that is. There doesn’t seem to be a lot out there on this topic from what I’ve seen but maybe I need to look harder. On another note, I’ve heard of male vegetarians being stereotyped as gay, along with female vegetarians also carrying the stereotype. But why is that? Are queer individuals more likely to be ethical, moral, health and/or environmentally-conscious individuals? It makes no sense! I’ve heard the argument that marginalized groups like those from the queer community and even women are more likely to become vegetarians and advocate for animal rights because they can empathize with non-human animals. But this explanation just doesn’t satisfy me. It doesn’t seem good enough.

“The study assumed that social factors are of primary importance in the adoption and maintenance of an ethical vegetarian diet and in the evolution of a coherent rationale for such a diet” (421)

Along with these social factors, the role of spatialities needs to be considered as well! Where a vegetarian eats, whether it is at home for a family meal or at a restaurant with friends, he or she will be treated differently as a result. The influence of spatialities, mixed with gender, is what I am especially interested in when it comes to the social implications of vegetarianism.

Participants: “Twenty-three students and former students gave interviews about their vegetarian diets, of whom 12 were women and 11 were men; men were slightly over-represented in the study relative to the gender distribution of vegetarians nationally. All of the students were white and from working-class or middle-class origins” (421)

I’ve heard about people criticizing vegetarianism as a something of a “white-elitist” practice. While I don’t have a lot of information about this position, from my understanding people argue that being a vegetarian or vegan is a difficult and more expensive lifestyle that mostly only people from the upper middle classes, and in that category, predominantly white people, can afford to do. However, I would definitely need to do more research as I don’t have any concrete evidence to support these assertions. Based on this study, I do think it is obviously limiting to only have white individuals interviewed, but I can at least appreciate that people from both the working-class and middle-class were represented.

“However, one important difference [between the male and female vegetarians in the study] emerged: none of the men met with disapproval from family or friends, whereas many women were challenged. Moreover, women were never confronted by other women. They met with disapproval only from family members and friends who were men” (422)

From my own personal experience, I’m not at all surprised by this finding. If I’m comparing my mother to my father’s response to my decision to stop eating meat, my mother didn’t seem to mind at all whereas my father was less supportive. My mother’s only concern was my health, which I think is a justifiable concern as most people think that they need far more protein than they actually do. Once I explained the facts, however, she was at ease. My father on the other hand never expressed outright disapproval but always made me feel ostracized at dinner time by making jokes or asking questions about my choices. I was beginning to feel like I couldn’t get through a meal without him mentioning it. But how can I account for these gendered differences? My mother and my father’s reactions to my choice on their own may not correlate with gender, but this study seems to have found a connection. Why do the men seem to care so much? Why does anyone care about the eating choices of another person?

“Friends who were vegetarians tended to respond positively, as did mothers, who often felt that the diet was healthful and reflected well on their sons’ maturity. If friends or family asked about the men’s decision, they generally accepted the proffered explanation without debate. None of the men reported a verbally or materially hostile response from a friend or family member” (422)

There’s the difference again: women are bothered, men are left alone. What stands out the most to me in this statement is the mother’s reaction to her son’s decision as a sign of maturity. I’m trying so hard not to scoff out loud! Not once has anyone in my family, male or female, praised me or commented on my “maturity” in abstaining from meat. But of course, when a man (who is stereotypically an unlikely candidate for vegetarianism…as meat is connected with masculinity) decides to become a vegetarian, it’s something to be perceived as a healthy lifestyle choice that a mother can be proud of as opposed to a decision based on emotions (like women are commonly accused of). It doesn’t allude to this in the passage, but I think the reason why women get more heat than men for their decisions is that people assume women choose to be vegetarians as a result of being overly emotional or sentimental towards non-human animals as opposed to taking a moral/ethical approach. Once again from my own experience, I can attest to this: shortly after reading Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer and announcing to my family that I was no longer eating meat, in one of the first conversations my father and I had, I remember him explicitly saying “you get so emotional…”

“Often, mothers helped by buying or cooking special food, but offered only a qualified endorsement of a vegetarian diet, expressing concerns about health” (422-423)

This describes my mother to a “T”! So it seems that my own experiences are not even remotely unique!

Comments from the interviewees:

“Abigail: I definitely had tension with some of my guy friends from home. Every time we talked on the phone or saw each other while visiting it would come up.

Ruth: My boyfriend hates the idea, and he won’t let it go!

Elizabeth: My brother in law will pick fights with me about it all the time” (423)

In every conversation with my father at dinner, it seems it would always “come up” just as Abigail says. And I’ve definitely gotten into a fight or two with people about the issue, arguing with concrete facts and having them being contested. What’s worse, after presenting the facts, I’ve been consequently accused of “talking down to people” or “thinking I’m better than people.” I understand that people obviously don’t enjoy feeling like they’re being backed into a corner, and maybe I’ve used a particular tone that I’m not realizing I’m using. But at the same time, I think these accusations does breathe some life into the argument of vegetarianism as an “elitist” practice. There have been times when I’ve tried to have a discussion with a non-vegetarian about the reason behind my decision and I’ve been met with harsh defense, as though people are trying to put me in my place. My intention is never to convert anyone, and I don’t preach, but if you start the conversation and ask me why I do what I do, I’m going to tell you. I’m not looking to shove it down your throat or make you feel bad about yourself. If you ask me, I’ll tell you. And if that comes off as “elitist” well…I apologize. But if you ask for the facts I’m going to deliver them.

“Among male family members – fathers or father figures in particular – verbal hostility was often accompanied by material efforts to interfere with the diet, including refusal to buy groceries, threats of punishment, or inclusion of meat in meals” (423)

I can at least say that no one in my life has physically attempted to interfere with my diet. Sure, absolutely no consideration of my diet is ever taken at dinner with my father (one time I made the tiniest comment that there are many delicious meals that you can have that don’t have meat, and that many non-vegetarian families have one day out of the week where they don’t eat meat, and I had my head ripped off immediately by my father and step-mother telling me that they’re “not vegetarians” and I “shouldn’t try to convert them” when I was doing absolutely nothing of the sort) but at least he isn’t forcing meat on my plate. He’s only ever accidentally put gravy on my potatoes, but at the same time I still can’t bring myself to think that I’m “lucky” compared to what these people have dealt with.

“In the United States, women become vegetarians at a much higher rate than men (Maurer, 2002), and empirical research has not yet accounted for this difference” (423)

The argument that “women are just more emotional than men” simply does not fly, and I’m glad to see that Merriman doesn’t make any assumptions and that the reasons are still inconclusive.

“The approbation or indifference conferred upon men may suggest that men are only likely to become vegetarians when they possess a relatively supportive network of friends and family. These are all propositions subject to confirmation or refutation by further study” (423)

“[According to Carol Adams (1990)] [b]oth women and non-human animals are objectified, and the subjugation of women is ratified by their figurative and discursive equation with animals and ‘meat’. Her theory can thus account not only for hostility to vegetarianism, but also for the link between hostility and emotional intimacy; fathers and boyfriends react most negatively to women participants’ adoption of a vegetarian diet, and these are the same people who would have the most ‘claim’ to authority over women in a patriarchal mindset” (424)

In this example, Merriman presents Adams’ ideas concerning why men react with such hostility towards women with their adoption of a vegetarian diet. Perhaps I’m overthinking this, but I grappled with these ideas for a while. If I’m understanding Adams’ argument correctly, she is theorizing that since women and non-human animals are intimately connected with regards to how they are perceived and treated in society (essentially like a form of property), then a woman’s decision to abstain from meat would be a practice that the dominant members of society (men) and those who would be most likely to objectify these women (their fathers and boyfriends, in terms of treating them like property) would be more likely to oppose. Even after writing that all out I still feel a little confused though…

“Adams’ account would suggest that meat eating men simply dismiss ethical vegetarianism out of hand, and that hostile responses are direct efforts at domination over women” (424)

Now it makes more sense! Just as men and humanity in general dominate non-human animals, so do men dominate women.

“Major longitudinal studies of vegetarianism suggest that a vegetarian diet is, across all categories of gender and age, significantly healthier than a typical meat-containing diet (Appelby et al., 1999). However, for women, vegetarian diets bear the stigma of association with eating disorders and weight control” (424)

I must say, I have never heard this position before. If a woman has a serious eating disorder, I’m pretty sure there’s a lot more involved than just opting for a black bean pita as opposed to chicken. Being a vegetarian doesn’t mean you are starving yourself! I find this so ridiculous. And actually, I’ve heard of people gaining weight as a result of becoming a vegetarian because they carb-load instead of opting for more fruits and vegetables. Opinions like these, especially coming from men, are completely uneducated and sexist. Sure, statistically more women than men develop eating disorders (according to the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders, found at the following link: http://www.anad.org/get-information/about-eating-disorders/eating-disorders-statistics/, 10-15% of people with eating disorders are men, which leaves 85-90% women) but this does not mean that all dietary changes immediately call for an eating disorder. I might refuse chicken at dinner, but I’m still going to eat a huge helping of salad and mashed potatoes.

“It is disappointing, if unsurprising, that young women face a double standard in choosing their diet, yet their persistence suggests that the link between women and animals is not merely one of mutual oppression, but also one of sympathy and mutual aid” (425)

I really don’t like this. I don’t like it at all. It actually makes me sort of mad, and maybe I’m blowing it out of proportion, but I feel like we just can’t win in this situation. It makes more sense for women to be vegetarians because of our positionalities, but at the same time when we actually take on a vegetarian lifestyle we are met with harsh criticism from male friends and family. And why is it only women who can connect sympathetically to non-human animals? It doesn’t take a similar experience for one to sympathize with a defenseless, tortured and sick animal. A man is more than capable of sympathizing. Maybe the researcher in this case was going more for empathy, which involves actually “putting yourself in another’s shoes” (feeling with them) as opposed to just “feeling for them.” While it doesn’t say that women are stereotypically more sympathetic than men are outright, that is what this passage seems to be implying. Not only do I disagree with putting one gender on a pedestal over another in terms of specific qualities, but I also think it puts an unnecessary expectation on women to be more sensitive. Am I blowing this out of proportion? Maybe…

“George (2000) offers a feminist critique of ethical vegetarianism, suggesting that it is elitist and coercive to encourage all women to become vegetarian” (425)

Do I even need to comment? This goes quite well with what I was saying above. It’s not just women who should be considering a vegetarian diet because of this bullshit “emotional connection” we have with non-human animals that men are apparently incapable of having. Responsibility should be put on everyone to critically think about what we are doing and what the impacts of our eating habits are.

The conclusion highlights a major difference between other studies in that it goes against research that supports the correlation between men and masculinity: “This [study] revises current theory about the linkage between women and nonhuman animals insofar as it jumbles the implied link between meat and manliness. Previous work has held that meat-eating is a sigil of masculinity, but male respondents indicated that abstention from meat was met with indifference or approval” (426)