Gender Inequality Alert: The following post asserts some points of view and scientific findings that some Feminists may find objectionable. If this is you, please feel free to read this biography of Betty Friedan, instead. For everyone else, I present coverage and comment on this contentious issue…
If viewing pictures of baby animals can make a woman less likely to order meat for lunch,
this classic example of “Awwwwwww…” material will make her order a salad.
Researchers at Lancaster University in the UK recently ran a social experiment in which they exposed men and women to images of calves, baby kangaroos, piglets and lambs and then tested whether this affected their desire for Meat.
What they did…
Researchers presented pictures of cooked Meat dishes paired with first adult and then baby images of cows and calves, baby ‘joeys’ and full-grown kangaroos, sows and piglets, and lambs and sheep. They also showed subjects pictures of cooked Meat dishes not paired with any animal picture at all.
While men and women both reported a reduced desire for Meat after viewing the pictures of the baby animals, the effect was found to be much stronger in women.
What this means…
“Our findings may reflect women’s greater emotional attunement towards babies and, by extension, their tendency to empathise more with baby animals,” hypothesizes Dr. Jared Piazza, Lead Author of the survey report. “Also, Meat is associated with masculinity and images of tough men who consume Meat for muscle building protein, along with prehistoric ideas of the male as hunter. Women have a much more ambivalent attitude towards Meat and their identity is not bound up with it in the same way.”
Piazza said the study implies that animal advocacy groups would be wise to focus on images of cute baby animals in their publicity, particularly when focused on young women viewers.
My take…
Yes, the Dr. is a man. But I don’t see how that makes his observations any less credible. After all, his study colleague, Dr. Cecilie Olesen of University College, London, concurred with and signed off on the study report. Also, this study’s findings echo those of previous studies that showed women were more susceptible to the charms of baby animals and less attracted to meat than men, in general.
I believe what we’re talking about here, as Dr. Piazza implies, is some kind of genetic, instinctual memory. Old, deeply embedded ideas, values and tenets that we have preserved as handed down by our earliest human ancestors. He talks about stereotypes such as the male hunter and the female nurturer. Those are hard to argue with. I mean, men are generally bigger and stronger, and more testosterone-fuelled, while women women are smaller, are the ones who bear and raise children, and are estrogen-infused.
Taken all together, this study and others of its ilk appear to call into question some of the core tenets of feminism, as it is proclaimed and practised today. But I say what it does is proclaim the differences between men and women, while asserting the superiority of each in their respective roles, which are so perfectly complementary, and defining them as equal in their importance to nature’s ultimate goal: the survival of the species.
Excuse me while I put on my riot gear and huddle in the corner against the coming onslaught of criticism…
~ Maggie J.