Popular Science Claims Eating Meat Is White Male Privilege

Hat tip to instapundit for the link. Yet another pillar of pop culture has been Converged into justifying female hysterics with hatred of Western Civilization. Woe unto those who call evil, good and veganism, healthy!

People think beef is manly, and that’s a big problem


By Sandra Gutierrez G, 30 October 2019

The guy in Burger King’s 2006 “Manthem” campaign for the Texas Double Whopper sits in a fancy restaurant and looks at his food. He’s appalled. The portion is tiny, and for some reason, it comes with a pink rosebud on the side. In a feat of utmost masculinity, he starts singing an altered version of Helen Reddy’s “I Am Woman,” boasting that he can’t settle for “chick food” and needs to eat meat.

They included the link. It’s awesome!

Who could possibly find fault with that? Presenting “DIY Associate Editor” Sandra:

Sandra Gutierrez

Flipboard: This 25-foot-long dino discovery suggests ...

Huh, her face doesn’t reflect her toxic background. Long, thick hair–although she obviously dyes it… eyes might be acquiring the Thousand Cock stare but not too quickly. Only her narrow, upturned nose and jutting chin suggest a confrontational attitude.

Per her LinkedIn, she’s a journalist from Chile, had a career going there in local media until going North to abort her residual femininity at Columbia’s J-school, leaving just this year. I don’t think she graduated, having been there only one year, and nothing in her background suggests she is capable of intelligently reporting on science and related topics. She’s been straight journalism/media relations.

Which I guess, explains her starting at Popsci as an editor rather than a mere content producer. Real work is for male drones.

Popsci’s been going downhill for about a decade… now publishing quarterly instead of monthly. Not a mystery if their current (non-photography) staff is any indication:

Editor-in-Chief Joe Brown
Creative Director Pete Sucheski
Executive Editor Kevin Gray
Managing Editor Corinne Iozzio
Online Director Amy Schellenbaum
Features Editor Susan Murcko
Science Editor Rachel Feltman
Technology Editor Stan Horaczek
Senior Producer Tom McNamara
Senior Editor Sophie Bushwick
Associate Editor Mary Beth Griggs
Assistant Editors Claire Maldarelli, Sara Chodosh, Rob Verger
Associate Producer Jason Lederman
Engagement Editor Ryan Perry
Commerce Editor Billy Cadden
Copy Chief Cindy Martin
Digital Producer Kayla Lockwood
Researchers Jake Bittle, Diane Kelly, Helina Selemon, Erika Villani

Three producers, four researchers and SIXTEEN editors/directors. Who’s making your content, Popsci? And Sandra isn’t even among them despite claiming employment for several months. Either she’s freelancing or their IT nerd got canned for a harmless joke.

Anyway, let’s continue the article.

The Double Whopper commercial aired more than 10 years ago, but the truth is, stereotypes around meat and masculinity haven’t changed much.

You had to reach back ten years because stereotypes HAVEN’T changed much?

To this day, there’s a cultural tendency to link the two together—particularly when it comes to red meat. Scientists have been digging into the connection since the 1980s to see how it adds up to traditional gender roles in different societies. Numerous studies have found that larger portions and unhealthy food are perceived as more masculine, while healthy food and smaller portions are considered more feminine.

You be the judge:

In fact, a 2010 study by researchers at the University of Toronto found that women tend to eat less in a romantic dinner situation to “make a good impression” on their male partners.

One, male preference for meat is biological. We have a lot more protein to maintain, most of us, and our naturally aggressive tendencies tend to get us hurt & stressed more often. We like it because we need it.

Two, meat is not inherently unhealthy any more than grain is inherently healthy.

These patterns go hand in hand with other research that’s looked at the way we perceive vegetarians and omnivores, and how that plays out when the binary-gender factor is thrown in. Vegetarianism and veganism are perceived as feminine practices, so when men engage in them, they face harsher judgement.

No, vegans are despised regardless of gender because they make an unhealthy religion out of not eating a good diet. They also tend to be conscientious objectors who enjoy the benefits of having violent defenders while sneering at them self-righteously. Nobody likes a hypocritical coward.

Does veganism also include a vow of not bathing? Asking for a friend in Santa Cruz.

“People generally are more critical of men who eat plant-based than they are of women who eat plant-based, partly because of the common belief that meat is a ‘man’s food,’ ” says Matthew Ruby, a professor at the School of Psychology and Public Health at La Trobe University in Albury-Wodonga, Australia.

Sandra is native to Chile and transplanted to USA, so why is she quoting an Australian? Is her science not ‘settled’ enough to quote a peer?

Both genders use descriptors like “less masculine” “physically weaker”, and “less likeable” when talking about men who eschew meat; some women even find them less attractive. Last year Italian researchers from the University of Padova looked at how dietary choices in men affected heterosexual dating preferences. In a series of studies, they found that omnivorous men had more success with women, even when women didn’t present a previous negative bias towards vegetarian men.

Let me solve this scientific Gordian knot on behalf of Italy: men who don’t eat meat are scrawny, soyboy crybabies that you women are not naturally attracted to. No meat means no muscles means no chick jumping your bones for a protein squirt.

“Women are often expected to take care of themselves more; they’re expected to be more compassionate and empathetic. Given that a lot of people don’t eat meat for concern for animals or the environment, that fits into those conceptions of what women should be like,” Ruby explains.

Most people who don’t eat meat, don’t have meat readily available. You can’t sniff traditional Chinese cooking without realizing it came about via multiple waves of centralized government-induced famine. “Are dogs edible? What about this seaweed?”

Any woman who says “those poor little fish tacos” cannot expect to marry well.

Meanwhile, when men quit meat for ethical or compassionate reasons, Ruby says they get flagged for adopting a feminine behavior that could jeopardize their position of strength and power.

Why do they believe that? The Christian knows that God designed us to eat meat, in fact, the first recorded animal killings were done by God Himself to provide clothing for Adam & Eve. It wasn’t even for food. Righteous Abel was a rancher. The Mosaic Law had kosher meat. Animal sacrifices were mandated. Saint Peter was a fisherman. Jesus is on record eating fish post-Resurrection.

Pigs are the only animal that will go to Heaven along with humans, because it can’t be Heaven without bacon.

The atheist knows that there is no morality, only winners and losers. There is no evo-psych reason to value the lives of the edible if you’re hungry.

What’s going on here is that weak men want to attract mates by publicly crying over Bambi while not having their man card shredded for just cause.

Pick a uniform and wear it, ye wimpy White Knights.

Matthew Ruby, a lecturer-not-professor. Definite intelligence third of his face. He’s obviously trying to highlight his jaw & chin, thus appearing more masculine than he really is… compensating for a toothpick body, perhaps, although he doesn’t have pencilneck (yet).

If that’s as high as his lips go when smiling then he’s naturally a very pessimistic person. Vegans tend to be that way. I’d be angry at the world, too, if I had to give up bacon cheeseburgers.

You can read some of his dishonest enthusiasm for veganism here; I’ll quote just one excerpt for the lulz.


For many years, veganism had relatively few adherents, and was largely dismissed as a fringe movement, if not met with outright hostility. In his 2000 book, Kitchen Confidential, Anthony Bourdain didn’t mince his words:

“Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter faction, the vegans, are a persistent irritant to any chef worth a damn. To me, life without veal stock, pork fat, sausage, organ meat, demi-glace, or even stinky cheese is a life not worth living.”

You would’ve been a great MGTOW, Tony.

Why do we think eating meat is masculine?

We don’t. We think eating meat is normal. Stop trying to set up a strawman argument!

In a time where the gender binary and gender roles have been questioned and debunked, it’s hard to put a finger on what masculinity actually is—and why meat has any role in it. While there’s no consensus on why we associate red meat to masculinity, experts have presented a few tasty hypotheses by bridging ancient societies with modern ones.

White men in North America should stop eating meat because the Neanderthals of Eritrea didn’t *all* starve to death on berries so far as vegan scientists are willing to admit. Bah! Don’t tell us that “ancient societies had different diets”, tell us by what authority our government can coerce us to adopt veganism against our will and valid nutritional arguments.

It sure as hell ain’t gonna be a government “of the people, by the people and for the people”.

No. 1: Men are the providers

The most widespread explanation, first presented by Julia Twigg in 1979, dates back to our hunter-gatherer roots. “In many cultures, hunting was a very male activity,” Ruby says. “Men were the ones going out, doing the hunting, and providing that meat.”

This is Julia Twigg. Happy Halloween:

Professor Julia Twigg - Professor of Social Policy and Sociology - YouTube

The most successful hunters were often large, strong men who could take on a wild animal and survive. These men were regarded as powerful, and the availability of meat in the community’s meals was a direct reflection of their power.

This association might still be hardwired into our brains, Ruby says, even though “hunting meat” now only requires the strength to tap some buttons and open the door for the delivery guy.

No. The need for animal protein is biological, not sociological. This is a fatal error. This is a blatant lie crafted by deceivers to justify the unjustifiable.

No. 2: Eating meat is a risky business

No again. Just NO already!

In sociology, masculinity is described as a precarious state that men must assert regularly and publicly. One of the main ways to do this is by engaging in risky behavior, be that avoiding medical or mental health care, or engaging in risky sexual behavior or substance abuse.

A diet that includes large portions and plenty of red meat, which is proven to be unhealthier than poultry and fish, can also count as a risky behavior. “There’s this association between unhealthy eating and masculinity, that if you’re a real man you shouldn’t be so concerned about your health,” Ruby says.

How did this get published in Popular SCIENCE? “We can count eating beef as risky behavior on par with drug abuse.”

He’s cautious, though, and clarifies that this is only a possible explanation, given that the idea of red meat being unhealthy is rather new. Only a few decades ago, red meat was seen as a key element of any recommended diet.

Before the Convergence, natch. Although even then, the Federal gov’t tried to push too many grains upon us. I remember the stupid food pyramid. “Teacher, my dad says the food pyramid is meat, veggies and dessert. Why is the government wrong?”

No. 3: Meat is a symbol of white-male privilege

OH COME ON! How can anybody believe this lying trash?

According to Carol Adams, a feminist-vegan advocate and author of the book The Sexual Politics of Meat, the myth that you need meat for strength is “traceable to this intersection of colonialism, white supremacy, and masculinity.”

Wild guess, Carol Adams is New York Times… *checks* Nope, she’s a PastorWife with an M.Div from Yale, whose early work was discovering that wife batterers are all meat eaters.

Vegan's Daily Companion - Colleen Patrick-Goudreau

Historically, Adams says red meat was a luxury reserved for aristocrats, who, at the turn of the 19th century, were largely male and white.

In Europe, sure. Not in the Americas, Asia or Australia. All of which had meat-eating cultures.

The bourgeois didn’t hunt or raise the cattle they ate; servants and peasants did all the physical work, though they themselves couldn’t afford to eat meat on a regular basis.

Sheep herding was huge in Europe at the time. She’s projecting a fictionalized version of the American Deep South’s plantation system back through time to a different continent.

Sixteen full-time editors couldn’t keep this train wreck from publication? Do they need eighteen?

Regardless, Europeans upheld the concept that meat equals strength, masculinity, and ultimately, superiority. Adams notes that the English bragged about how they were able to colonize India because their soldiers ate red meat unlike the native men.

WHICH IS IT? Were the peasants not allowed to eat the meat they raised for idle aristocrats, or did White Man have powerful imperialist armies because the troops were raised eating meat in preparation for colonizing vegan lands?

She also mentions that in World War II, the US and UK rationed meat at home so that soldiers on the front lines would have more fuel for the fight. The governments also launched a victory-garden initiative using propaganda that featured only women planting and harvesting vegetables.

“Millions killed in the World Wars; idle housewives most affected.”

Winds of (cultural) change

Though it’s safe to say that the link between meat and masculinity is widespread, its expression varies between cultures. Understanding the nuances helps us to better dissect the stereotypes and learn how to get past them.


That’s no small order, of course. Culture is flexible and changes constantly, but it may take a while to get over entrenched beliefs on meat and gender roles. While feminist and LGBTQI+ movements across the world have forced societies to question their definition of masculinity, the industry has been slower on the uptake. Fast food ads continue to target men with gendered cliches and expectations. “All of these are ways of trying to recuperate something that has already been lost,” Adams says.

The popularity of plant-based diets has, in some part, forced meat-centric companies to invest in vegetarian and vegan trends.

Which is it? Are plant-based diets becoming more popular, or were meat sellers FORCED… your word… to carry vegan alternatives? Merchants don’t really care how they make a buck but tyrannical Ivory Tower elitists do… especially the sickly, bitter, vegan ones.

Maybe 2020 will be the year Burger King finally revamps its “Manthem” campaign to include a chicken nugget—or even a carrot.

How can anybody believe these lies? You’ve come a long way, baby, from “men beat their wives because the Super Bowl is on television” to “nutrition is a social construct.”

Get Woke, Go Broke, Popular Science magazine. Die in shame.


5 thoughts on “Popular Science Claims Eating Meat Is White Male Privilege

  1. It’s basically about feminism and how we can trace back any normal, healthy behavior back to ‘toxic’ masculinity.

    You watch…they’ll make heterosexual intercourse in marriage a symbol of the patriarchy and white privilege in order to promote sodomy.


  2. Red meat proteins make men taller, stronger, and thus more independent. It wasn’t just the aristocracy that got the meat in the Middle Ages, it was also their enforcers. That’s why the system was so stable before the agricultural revolution made meat readily available: the elites and their henchmen were considerably bigger and stronger than their subjects.
    As such, I wouldn’t consider it a feminist push against men eating meat. It’s more likely done by the kind of people who want us normies short, weak, and scrawny, because then we’re easier to tyrannize.


  3. Pingback: Screw What the Media Tells You pt 50. | Free Matt Podcasts

  4. “That’s why the system was so stable before the agricultural revolution made meat readily available”

    I attribute the feudal system’s failure to the Black Death because it made human life expensive again. One-third reduction of the available workforce and all that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s