this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
102 points (87.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5240 readers
607 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Imagine thinking toxic masculinity is a bigger problem for this issue than beef/dairy subsidies and entrenched market forces. Nice distraction piece, NPR.
I honestly believe the two are related. I think big meat agro business is paying influencers to promote toxic masculinity and push nonsense like "plants emit toxic hormones" on social media.
Maybe, but that's just to keep demand anywhere near high enough to consume the products that subsidies ensure they will be producing anyways, so they can argue that the current subsidies are necessary.
Ok, but can we not acknowledge that this shit had an effect on the whole manly incel epidemic and those people are trying to take over the most poweful country on the planet and make sure those subsidies never end?
Incels gave up on being "manly enough". Their whole schtick is that its "un-fair" that "only the manliest men get laid", and that they believe they deserve sex just for being born with a dick.
I'm not saying all the "red-pill"/"sigma-pill"/"incel" groups/narratives don't feed into eachother, but you've gotta realize these people are already in the minority. It's not their influence keeping the subsidies going, it's the public's wallets keeping demand just high-enough to "justify" the subsidies, and the fact that the subsidies are backed by decades of established law.
There is no point trying to reason with the die-hards that will keep on consuming long after increased prices drive the rest of us away from beef consumption. The subsidies that keep their bull-shit lifestyles affordable and convenient should be the focus of our efforts.
Let them waste more money on being single and lonely. Their pocket-books will shout at them louder and more convincingly than the rest of us ever could.
Minority or not, they are in politics and gaining power everywhere the right wing is surging and tbey are the same people in favour of all those subsidies. That said, i agree tbat the rest of the general public needs to change their consumption habits to make a real difference. I still think it's worth pointing out the manly beef eating misogynist connection though, especially in advertising and its pernicious effects on society.
Right, that's why Kamala is ahead in the polls. You are confusing escalating rhetoric and the volume of such for the number of people that believe that garbage. They are spamming their gibberish everywhere because they know they won't win the election if enough people turn out to vote...
... but sure, go on pretending Andrew Tate represents the average American man. If you keep it up, you can scare enough women and young voters away from the polls to make a difference, and won't that be just a joy for any of us with an ounce of sense to deal with?
The idea that Republicans/conservatives are surging in numbers/influence/popularity is itself a MAGA talking point. The numbers do NOT bear it out.
How would that scare those who don't support him away from the polls? I would have thought it would be an incentive to vote? Assuming most women and young people do not support Andrew Tate.
Imagine wondering how claiming the armed election-interfering ass-hats are in the majority would scare people away from the polls.
Its difficult enough to convince people who see this country for what it is and has always been that voting is safe, ethical and worthwhile without you and people like you repeating MAGA talking points about how their numbers are increasing, when the opposite is the case.
Don't talk about the nazi's! People might get scared! Everthing is fine!
At no point did I claim they are in the majority.
If it's purely on subsidies, then why, as stated in the article, are men consuming disproportionately more beef than women? Am I missing out on my secret man meat tax cut?
Yeah, i think that research might be missing some context...
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240618/Study-finds-men-eat-meat-more-often-than-women-especially-in-gender-equal-developed-countries.aspx
Meat consumption by males goes up when you have a developed nation, it's almost purely economic, stupid to try to make this part of the culture war considering how small these communities are and their median ages.
"Economic factors explain the influence of human development since meat production costs are higher than plant-origin food production. Nations with more resources provide more options for individuals to buy and eat beef. The findings build on comparable studies with psychological traits and help rule out reference group effects as a possible reason."
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.
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.
Yes, you're missing that subsidies ensure the same amount of beef gets produced no matter the demand. In fact, that amount is set higher than demand. Demand is artificially increased due to the high availability and low prices resulting from these policies. Removing the subsidies would lower both Availability and Demand, as the lowered availability would increase prices.
TL;DR: Consumption gender ratios have NOTHING to do with the amount of beef that is being produced, nor, therefore, its impacts on the environment.
I can only restate the obvious so many times, and I HAVE already restated the facts on this at least twice prior to your question. Are you dense, or just insincere?