It is common knowledge that vegetarianism is more common with women. Hank Rothgerber reveals some of the underlying factors in these gender differences.Rothberger studued undergraduates and found that assertive defenses of meat eating were more common in males and associated with feelings of masculinity. Specifically more masculine indivduals were were likely to use justifications such as that eating meat is healthy, justified by religion and allowed by animals' lower status. More feminine individuals tends to have strategies of avoidance such as not thinking to much about where meat comes from.
It is interesting to see that part of the masculine strategy that seems out of character is the denial of animal suffering in meat production. This strikes me as more a strategy pf avoidance--assuming lack of suffering rather than really trying to assess the degree of suffering that may or may not occur. This both masculine and feminine strategies can be said to embrace a degree of denial and dissociation for the animal. Overall masculine individuals are more unapologetic meat eaters but also apparently less interested in the welfare aspects of how meat is produced, or as Rothberger phrased it "hostile to animal welfare".
The author goes on to present various pro-vegetarian arguments phrased in a more masculine way (e.g. rational, non-conformist) but they do not look at how being in denial about animal welfare issues--whether one eats meet or not--is not a macho orientation but a weak 'head in the sand' position in contrast to either fixing the problems or changing which food products to support (within or beyond the meat category).
Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14 (4), 363-375 DOI: 10.1037/a0030379
