According to a sociology professor at Pennsylvania State University, if you enjoy eating meat, then you’re responsible for perpetuating the “hegemonic masculinity” that sustains the Patriarchy and keeps feminists so angry.
“Hegemonic masculinity” is a common topic in pubs and clubs, barber shops and hairdressers these days and basically takes as a starting point that all men are sods who oppress women, and they have thousands of tricks to use in order to accomplish this oppression.
Exposing these tricks is the way sociologists can publish something and manage to cling to a job explaining a useless subject to ditzy university students.
Anyway, Professor Anne DeLessio-Parson published her article, shaming meat-eaters for their anti-feminism, in this month’s “Journal of Feminist Geography” (a publication MM editors are compelled to subscribe to as a condition of employment). In it, she claims that “hegemonic masculinity implies an imperative to eat meat” and that people who “follow that imperative reinforce other power hierarchies as well, including the Patriarchy.”
As you can see, you don’t have to talk sense when you are a sociologist, in fact you must not. You must erect a thicket of thorny words and phrases, promising that when you break through you will find a gem of wisdom.
DeLessio-Parson interviewed a total of 27 vegetarians to get their thoughts on how male oppression and vegetarianism are related, and from those interviews, theorised that women become vegetarians in order to push back against the “meat-centric” culture and “destabilise” the gender binary (the gender binary is the heresy that there are only two sexes, women and men).
“The decision to become vegetarian does not itself destabilize gender, but the subsequent social interactions between vegetarian and meat-eater demand gender enactment—or resistance,” DeLessio-Parson wrote. “Refusing meat therefore presents opportunities, in each social interaction, for the binary to be called into question.”
In common language, knocking back the steak when out dining sends a subtle signal to the restaurant owner and staff that the customer is asking them to reconsider out-of-date concepts that there are only two genders – male and female. It’s subtle stuff but if enough quarter-pounders are left uneaten at Maccas, staff will get the message.
Let’s ignore the fact that “hegemonic masculinity” sounds like a kick-ass rock band name and look at the claims themselves, which are frankly idiotic.
First, how can anyone draw any conclusions about anything from a sample size of 27 people? DeLessio-Parson grabbed a couple dozen vegetarians, then apparently codified their answers as an overarching concept of gender-relations regarding meat-eating?
Or is it more likely that she interviewed hundreds but only 27 nut-cases thought her questions made any sense?
The truth is that eating meat is what gives men and women the energy needed to evolve into the dominant species on the planet despite lacking any physical advantages previously. DeLessio-Parson would have mankind ignore that fact, though it is just as possible that she has written more on anthropology than she has ever read.
Of course, in the process, she may have established something she didn’t intend. You see, DeLessio-Parson essentially connects men who are vegetarians with more feminine qualities. She tries to prove that not eating meat is a feminist act — but in the process, she appears to be making the claim that real men eat meat.
Also that women who eat meat are letting the team down and are becoming less feminine as well.
For her next act she will interview the feminine halves of homosexual partnerships and see if the Nancy’s are dominated, oppressed and otherwise kept in check by the Butch’s who wolf steak three times a day.