A Review of Professor Anne DeLessio-Parson’s “Doing Vegetarianism to Destabilize the Meat-masculinity Nexus in La Plata, Argentina.”
By David Richardson
There is an academic journal entitled, Gender, Place, and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography. In the field of women’s studies, it is a well-known, peer-reviewed publication. The journal’s stated aim is to be "a forum for debate in human geography and related disciplines on theoretically-informed research concerned with gender issues." That is what the journal says about itself, and a rumor circulates in academic circles that some people actually understand what that phrase means after having read it only once.
One supporter is a former past president of the Association of American Geographers, Professor Victoria A. Lawson. She commends the publication in this way, “[It] is a very high-quality journal, one that is advancing original scholarship in the critical arenas of feminist geography and feminist interdisciplinary work.” That is high praise, and I would never dream of taking exception to it.
Nonetheless, no matter how critical these arenas might be, I had never before thought of geography in either masculine or feminine terms. Until encountering this journal, I had always regarded geographical coordinates as intrinsically genderless, for people of all genders live in most locations of the world, and that seems equitable to me. Admittedly, gender problems exist virtually everywhere. That’s a detail of life, but I don’t regard this fact as a cause for taking sides. Boorish and oppressive behavior is wrong, no matter where it might appear and no matter the gender. Regrettably, such behavior is equal opportunity, and I take it on a case-by-case basis. But I don’t infect my compass with it.
Moreover, “feminist interdisciplinary work” sounds a bit sexist—at least to my uninitiated ears, something of a select club that excludes most men and focuses on the feminine. Though the byword is inclusion these days, I still don’t mind being left out. My feelings aren’t hurt. Private clubs, after all, can have their membership rules. Nonetheless, the attitude does appear a bit ideological and elitist. So by definition, the descriptive phrase is one-sided--sounding more like “we are looking down our nose at you” advocacy than it does research. That’s not to my taste, but others may enjoy the ambiance. We should not divide over differences in aesthetic tastes. That’s the tolerant thing to do.
So despite my personal reservations, I am not writing as a critic of feminist geography or of feminists in different disciplines pooling their resources. I encourage both. It is a free society. Instead, I wish merely to highlight an example of the original scholarship to which Victoria A. Lawson must be referring.
Weaponized Vegetarianism
The journal’s November (2017) issue contained an article by Professor Anne DeLessio-Parson entitled, “Doing Vegetarianism to Destabilize the Meat-masculinity Nexus in La Plata, Argentina.” This paper is about “La Plata, Argentina,” so that covers the geography focus of the journal. The “meat-masculinity nexus” seems an odd way to introduce gender; nonetheless, that focus seems covered, too. The introduction of “vegetarianism” seems a much less relevant item, and weaponizing it to “destabilize” the “meat-masculinity nexus” seems a contrived way to make the exclusive consumption of vegetables relevant to gender, though it does echo the militant views of vegan activist, Carol J. Adams.
The term “destabilize” seems overly militaristic, but it actually becomes bizarre when joined with “vegetarianism.” The professor combines the two ideas to identify the strategic means in a military campaign to overthrow “meat masculinity.” But the very image of vegetables destabilizing masculinity—no matter what kind it is—seems more like a cartoonish parody than it does a serious academic idea. It conjures the image of grim, revolutionary celery stalks on the march to measure out well- deserved justice to offensive male gardeners who are obviously up to no good. But the author is serious about it, and so are vegan activists. Consequently, “meat masculinity”—whatever that actually is—underestimates the power of vegetables at its own risk. That seems to be the general point.
Professor DeLessio-Parson has deliberately chosen conflict imagery because she firmly believes that this is war. The dining room table is one of the battlefields on which serious clashes are won or lost. What’s on one dinner plate will represent patriarchal power (meat); what’s on another will represent resistance to traditional expectations and gender roles (vegetables). The plate she favors in the struggle is never in question. Apparently, she feels that a diet devoid of meat can do magical things to bring social peace and to facilitate gender understanding. This kind of thing happens when one can no longer tell the difference between one’s ideology and ordering lunch.
Now, for those who do not know what a “meat-masculinity nexus” is, then shame on you. I refuse to explain; I don’t have the patience. Well, to be honest, I am not quite certain that I know what it really means either, but it is a very bad thing. I am sure of that. The good professor tells me so. So I assure you that it is not an SNL put-on. It is a “serious” idea. It lies, presumably, at the very heart of men’s oppression of women. In fact, the “meat-masculinity nexus” may have been one of the many, many factors of Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump. Ms. Clinton may have already covered it in her book (What Happened). If not, she will cover it when she writes the sequel (What Happened—Really!). But if you wish to explore the concept more fully, follow the link I have supplied to the journal and read the Delassio-Parson’s original article.
Professor DeLessio Parson and Her Thesis
Professor DeLessio-Parson is a sociologist who teaches at Pennsylvania State University. Apparently, she is also a vegetarian feminist, and this way of life is central to her intellectual and culinary crusade against the “Patriarchy,” which is typically understood as the social order ruled by men and which Professor DeLessio-Parson associates with “gender-hegemony.” Under this “hegemony," apparently, meat consumption is a requirement. Consequently, if you are enjoying a barbecued beef rib right now, you are part of the gender problem—particularly if you are male. The professor has you in her sights. Nonetheless, it’s good to know that DeLessio-Parson is not using the science of sociology to promote a personally preferred dietary habit or to vilify ideologically half of the world’s population. That is reassuring.
Below is the abstract to her article.
“In patriarchal societies where hegemonic masculinity implies an imperative to eat meat, vegetarianism disrupts food culture, raising questions about how vegetarians do, re-do, and rework gender. Analyzing 23 interviews in La Plata, Argentina, I find that the narratives of conversion and social pushback reported by women and men expose gender enactment and social reinforcement of the binary. At times, vegetarians compensate by drawing on scripts of femininities and masculinities that uphold difference, e.g. women cook meat and reassure meat-eaters; men make rationality-based claims and demonstrate strength. Yet in other moments, vegetarians defy attempts to hold them accountable to gendered social expectations. Women, for example, assert authority over their diets; men embody rejection of the meat-masculinity nexus by adopting a worldview that also rejects sexism and racism. I contend that in such a context, we cannot separate the ways people ‘do vegetarianism’ from how they ‘do gender.’ Doing vegetarianism in interactions drives social change, contributing to the de-linking of meat from gender hegemony and revealing the resisting and reworking of gender in food spaces.”
n https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1395822
Where Eddie Met Salad: A Non-sexist, Non-racist Future
What the professor’s paper claims constitutes a remarkable scientific insight. Vegetarianism, apparently, can do wonders to heal sexism and racism. In addition, eating carrots can be an empowering act of subversive defiance against masculine domination—an act that empowers both men and women to embrace a non-sexist, non-racist worldview that defies traditional social expectations. That’s heroic. And you thought that the vegetable entrées on the restaurant’s menu were merely options. Instead, they constitute paths to valiant non-conformity and virtuous social revolution.
DeLessio-Parson’s insight is even more remarkable since it comes from the analysis of only 23 interviews. During a time of dwindling university budgets, this saves time and precious research dollars. Who needs a representative sample in a rigorously peer-reviewed journal anyway? But note the professor’s assertion that one cannot separate how people “do vegetarianism” from how people “do gender.” I am not exactly sure what that means, but I suppose it might—at least, by analogy— refer to how a vegetarian diet subdues a bull’s masculine aggressiveness and encourages the bull to exhibit pacific, feminine, bovine behaviors. Or how the average lioness would prefer to stalk a varied herbivorous diet; but on the African savannah, the closest she can come to that is hunting and eating herbivores. For the lioness, every feminine instinct within her feline heart resists the impulse, but the injustice of nature’s enforced “meat-masculinity nexus” impels her to slay and to eat. If the journal has not yet reported on these and similar phenomena, the editorial board should solicit papers. Nature simply brims with gender injustice.
The professor also claims that “doing vegetarianism” promotes positive social change. Why? It “delinks meat from gender hegemony” and reworks the “doing of gender in food spaces.” Applying DeLessio-Parson’s findings more locally, one would classify McDonald’s as a reactionary stronghold for the forces of Patriarchy. Consequently, a woman might find the atmosphere too oppressive when she attempts to order a Quarter-Pounder at the restaurant’s counter or drive-thru. Moreover, such demeaning behavior (i.e., ordering the Quarter Pounder) would only reassure “meat eaters,” endorse the Patriarchy, and affirm the binary. What a shame and a pity.
In the light of DeLessio-Parson’s paper and in the name of social justice, women should go to Where Eddie Met Salad for lunch—presuming that they could abide the male “first name” in the restaurant’s commercial designation. Inviting the men in their lives to have lunch with them at this restaurant might promote positive social change. There is only one drawback. Where Eddie Met Salad still promotes meat toppings for its menu offerings. Sometimes, social change takes patience.
Conclusion
Professor DeLessio-Parson’s scientific scholarship is quite impressive. In fact, her views can boast an established precedent in intellectual history. Here is just one example. Ludwig Feuerbach--the author of the Essence of Christianity and the subject of Marx’s well-known “Theses on Feuerbach”--recognized the importance of nutrition to the spread of progressive socialism. He advised that the reason the 1848 European Socialist Revolutions failed was that the underclasses suffered from “potato poor blood.” His solution? Let them eat beans. That would give the common man sufficient energy to rise up against oppressors and to establish the utopian society. Yes, beans, a more nourishing food than potatoes, would do the trick and pave the way to social justice.
To achieve a future for humankind devoid of racism, sexism, and gender injustice, Professor DeLessio-Parson offers a similar, straightforward formula: “Genders of the world unite and hurl an asparagus spear through the heart of Patriarchy. Hegemonic men, shut up, eat your vegetables, and leave the animals alone.”
I congratulate Professor DeLessio-Parson for entering the pantheon of intellectual heroes who gauge social justice by food choice. Her evaluation of meat and “hegemonic-masculinity” easily matches the depth of research and explanatory power of Ludwig Feuerbach’s analysis of the European Revolutions of 1848. The good professor, at least, has a few actual interviews on file. Feuerbach just winged it.
Consequently, DeLessio-Parson’s paper is a great accomplishment, an advance in human knowledge. Certainly, we are proud of her. I am nibbling my carrot expectantly, awaiting her next contribution to scholarship.
Nonetheless, I cannot help but wonder. Though I am not disturbed by the professor's views, might others of all genders who love to eat meat find the professor’s words offensive? Will her views make consenting college carnivores feel unsafe in her classes? Her paper contains a “trigger warning” for those offended by the killing of animals for food. Should she not also include a similar warning for those of all genders who love a good sirloin? Should she not inform them before they read her paper that her views will reject their personal values, that her analysis will judge their culinary choices, and that her conclusions will cast them as minions of the binary? She should, of course. That would be kind. It would also be the inclusive thing to do.
Link to Gender, Place, and Culture: