• strugglingtiger@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days 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
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days 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.