The Impact of Masculinity on the Animal Liberation Movement

The Impact of Masculinity on the Animal Liberation Movement Lynze Thornburg California State University, Chico Honors in General Education Thesis Heather Altfeld 17 May 2017 Introduction A few years ago, I moved into my first apartment. For me, one of the most exciting parts of finally living on my own was that I had the freedom to do whatever I wanted! I didn’t have to answer to anybody, and even better, nobody was there to nag me to clean up my messes. As a very knowledgeable “adult” my philosophy for cleaning became “I’ll get to it when I get to it.” Which, surprisingly, worked out well for me most of the time. However, as any reasonable person would assume, this theory does not fly when it comes to owning a refrigerator. I am a huge advocate for sustainable living, which makes it embarrassing to reveal that I tend to let food go to waste. I am significantly better about it now, but then I would buy a full weeks’ worth of groceries and proceed to go out to eat for most meals. Repeating this for a few weeks led to some very disturbing things happening in our refrigerator. The worst of this was the smell, which upon cleaning I realized was rotting meat. Removing the meat from the refrigerator for the first time, I was struck with a thought: THIS is the rotting carcass of a dead animal. This new awareness started my journey of animal rights activism. After that experience, the thought of eating meat became sickening. I had never questioned the fact that meat and animal byproducts are necessary and healthy. After a few weeks, I confidently labeled myself a vegetarian – which gradually converted into veganism. It all seemed to make so much sense to me. A year later I discovered the concept of ecofeminism which, at its root, explains the interconnectedness of all oppression. As an activist, this was my big “ah-ah” moment – I recognized that the systems that dominate marginalized communities and animals are mutually reinforcing. Since then, I’ve gained a broader understanding of sociological theory and the academic language to put that moment into words. As I expanded my knowledge of feminist and social theory, I noticed that often lacking in this conversation is the effect of patriarchal control on the construction of masculinity, and the subsequent problems stemming from it. The specific problem that this paper will focus on is the domination of non– human animals. Drawing on a vast range of writers from the fields of Western philosophy, animal ethics, and gender studies, in combination with ethnographic research, this thesis aims to demonstrate the effects of American masculinity on the animal liberation movement, and subsequently discuss the need for radical change to end all interlocking systems of oppression. Animal Liberation Movement The animal rights movement is powered by the belief system that non – human animals are “entitled to an equal claim on life and liberty and possess the same rights to existence as human animals (Jensen).” The core beliefs of the movement are deeply rooted in years of Western philosophical debate – all beginning with Aristotle who argued that humans are morally superior to non – human animals because they lack reason, and therefore it is acceptable to use them as a resource for our needs. This reasoning birthed the concept of anthropocentrism – which upholds that only humans are intrinsically valuable. The moral argument for this is that most humans are “typically intelligent, self-aware, autonomous, language users, and moral agents; [additionally] humans engage in play and make art, among other complex cognitive tasks (Tanner).” From this point of view animals, and other beings, lacking these “complex cognitive skills” are only of instrumental value. The Aristotelian notion of human superiority was reinforced in religious doctrine that asserted “God created humans in his own image, and that we are free to use natural resources – including animals – for our own purposes (DeGrazia 3).” Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, two of the most influential Middle Ages philosophers and Christian theologians, maintained this view. Although Augustine recognized that animals experience pain, he upheld the belief that a being’s worth is in their rationality and ability to seek the “divine truth (Boddice 86).” Similarly, Aquinas placed value in humans free will and the ability to have a relationship with God. Animals lack of autonomy and reason means that they must be guided by humans in any necessary ways. Interestingly, Aquinas recognized that a high propensity to commit acts of animal cruelty may result in a higher likelihood of being cruel to other human beings (Boddice 87). However, he was still anthropocentric in his usage of animals as a means to an end. The relationship between Christianity and anthropocentrism is well explained by Tsui-Jung Wu in “A Critical Reflection of Christian Anthropocentrism and Ecological Crisis from a Taoist Perspective: A Contribution to Christian-Taoist Eco-Theology” when he states “there is no doubt and no problem either, in stating that human beings are always considered having the main roles, even perhaps being inferior only to the Supreme Being in Christianity, since the promise of salvation is implicitly for human beings. Hence, anthropocentrism does not seem to be a problem for Christianity. Indirectly, however, this implies that nature exists to serve mankind’s desires (Wu 50).” With Christianity being a dominant religion throughout the entirety of history, this concept has stuck. Later came Rene Descartes who upheld anthropocentrism, but for different reasons. Essentially, he believed that animals were devoid both of reason and feelings. He recognized them as living creatures, but characterized them as automata – essentially meaning he viewed them as “organic machines” whereas, humans had immortal souls (Boddice 29). From this he deduced that animals cannot reason or feel pain, and therefore it was perfectly acceptable to use them for human purposes (“Rene Descartes”). Immanuel Kant was another hugely influential philosopher because he conceived the concept of autonomy – which is “freedom from the casual determinism of nature (DeGrazia 5).” This requires “having self-consciousness and the capacity to be guided by reason (“Animal Rights”).” He believed that autonomous beings should not be used as a means to an end. In this regard, animals do not fit his categorization. As other humans are autonomous beings, our direct duties are to them. However, he also states that “If any acts of animals are analogous to human acts and spring from the same principles, we have duties towards the animals because thus we cultivate the corresponding duties towards human beings (“Animal Rights”).” Meaning that we do not have direct duty to animals. However, if the inhumane treatment of animals is negatively contributing to humanity then we have a direct duty to stop it. David Hume has a somewhat similar viewpoint as Kant in the sense that he recognizes animals as more than just emotionless, worthless robots. In fact, he famously stated “no truth appears to be more evident, than that beast are endow'd with thought and reason as well as men (Lurz).” Although he recognized that there are differences in human and animal reasoning, he examined the fact that humans and animals have the similar ability to learn from past experiences, and infer future experiences. Essentially, he is among the first to recognize the intrinsic value of animal. However, he still believed humans abilities are superior and that “the notion of justice concerns transactions among those roughly equal in power and is therefore irrelevant in our dealing with animals (DeGrazia 5).” Then came the big utilitarian thinkers whose philosophies have greatly impacted the thoughts of animal rights activists. First and foremost is the Jeremy Bentham, who is one of the great consequentialist philosophers. The essence of his theory is “maximizing the balance of pleasure over pain in those affected by one’s action (DeGrazia 5).” He is regarded as one of the earliest proponents of animal rights because of his recognition of animals as sentient beings, and his subsequent criticism of unwarranted human infliction of suffering against animals with no greater goal in mind.  In 1861 John Stuart Mill published Utilitarianism in which he expanded upon the concepts of Bentham. In Utilitarianism, he states that utilitarianism is “the creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure (Arnerson 1)” He complexified Bentham’s theory with his belief that not all pleasure is equal – as he expanded it to include intellectual, aesthetic, and moral enjoyments (DeGrazia 5). He believed that some of these enjoyments were higher than others. For example, pleasure of intellect is higher than common sensuous pleasure (DeGrazia 5). Mill’s “greatest happiness principle,” is a part of this high/low scale. He valued happiness over pleasure because he views pleasure as gratification, but not fulfillment (Arnerson 1). Bentham and Mill’s concepts of utilitarianism paved the way for contemporary animal rights philosophers. Although there had been years of philosophy surrounding the topic of animal liberation, the movement itself began in nineteenth century England when the first anti-cruelty bill was passed in 1800. The founder of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Colonel Richard Martin, was also one of the first people to pass an act focused on the protection of animals (Walls 1). It wasn’t until 1866 that the United States was introduced to the SPCA, forty-two years after its origination in England. It was first introduced in New York by Henry Bergh, and continued to gain momentum among the United States advocating for animal rights and opening animal shelters. It is also important to take into considered the impact that the industrial revolution played as there was continued decrease in the agrarian lifestyle, and a shift of people adopting pets as family animals instead of purely agricultural purposes (Walls 1). In the 1890’s came the anti-vivisection wave of the movement, but which struggled as science took priority. The focus of the early 1900’s was on the creation of leagues and societies such as The Humane Society of the United States, The Society for Animal Protective Legislation, and the Animal Welfare Institute (Walls 1). The late 1900’s can be characterized by the breakthrough of revolutionary ideas of philosophers such as Peter Singer and Tom Regan. This period also brought the formation of groups such as Greenpeace, the Sea Shepherd Society, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Walls 2). Peter Singer and Tom Regan are two incredibly influential philosophers in the modern- day animal liberation movement. Singer’s Animal Liberation, in which he revived and expanded upon the notion of utilitarianism, was published in 1975. One of the most revolutionary aspects of his work is the conceptualization of “speciesism” – which is “a prejudice or bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species (Gruen 34).” Singer believes that the value of life should not be place in a being’s intelligence, but rather in their ability to feel pain (Gruen 34). He makes this point by questioning the taking the life of a non-human animal simply because of their lowered intelligence- which is one of the main points made by consumers of animal products. From a utilitarian standpoint, he then begins to question how this stance from animal consumers affects humans who are neurodiverse or have lessened cognitive functions. Are they worth less ethical concern? From this he deduces flawed reasoning, and draws the conclusion that all beings with preferences must be taken into deliberation when considering what course of action will cause the least amount of suffering for all (Gruen 34-35).  Tom Regan is another huge contributor to present day philosophy for animal rights. In 1983, he published The Case for Animal Rights which draws from Kantian philosophy in the sense that all subjects of life should never be treated as a means to an end (Gruen 36). In many ways, he rejects the utilitarian viewpoint of Singer as he focuses more on the inherent value of all beings, and treating all sentient beings with the respect that they are due – sentient meaning the ability to experience subjective perceptual experiences (Allen and Trestman). Regan’s philosophy of intrinsic value provides a conceptual framework for arguments that correlate with a variety of social movements (Gruen 36). The abuse and exploitation of animals on a wide spread scale due to industrialized animal agriculture is at the forefront of the present-day animal liberation movement. Currently, there are approximately 56 billion land animals that are raised for human consumption each year, causing unthinkable amounts of suffering and death (Sandler 1). This is just one of the many alarming statistics that is making it increasingly difficult to avoid discussing the problems associated with industrialized animal agriculture – which include mass suffering and death of animals, as well as an increase in the degradation of ecological and human animal health. Our global population is now making its way to 7.5 billion people, and feeding everyone is no easy task. The United States’ response to this is mass production. In the past few decades there has been rapid transition from family farms to large corporate farms. This is largely attributed to the concept of confinement - which revolutionized animal husbandry in 1923 because the “animal numbers [were] no longer limited by the supply of natural resources or the overall carrying capacity of a region (Silbergeld 39).” This, combined with improved transportation, contributed to an increase in meat production because those without the natural resources to farm could now do so, and on a very large scale. The enactment of widespread confinement practice is the biggest contributing factor to animal food industrialization (Silbergeld 39). The technical name for these confined factory farms are Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The Environmental Protection Agency defines AFOs as “agricultural operations where animals are kept and raised in confined situations… [in which] animals have been, are, or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period (“Animal Feeding”). As explained by the United States Department of Agriculture an AFO is recognized as a CAFO if it contains more than 1,000 animal units confined on site for more than 45 days during the year. To put this into perspective: 1,000 animal units is the equivalent of “1,000 head of beef cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2,500 swine weighing more than 55 pounds, 125,000 broiler chickens, or 82,000 laying hens or pullets (“Animal Feeding”).” By government standards it is reasonable to have 1,000 or more sentient beings confined in a single space from birth to death. More concerning, 99% of the meat that American’s consume is generated by these factory farms (including both AFOs and CAFOs) (Wolfe). Additionally, CAFOs single-handedly make up 5% of U.S. animal operations, but are producing 50% of meat- which is astounding. Moreover, it is incredibly concerning because it is a system built upon animal cruelty (Gurian-Shurman 2). These practices have been consistently and widely reported to cause animal suffering. Take for example the fact that a chicken in 1920 took about 16 weeks to reach 2.2 pounds, and a present-day chicken reaches 5 pounds in 7 weeks (Hribar 1). It’s not natural, and wreaks havoc on their bodies. During their tragically shortened lives they struggle to survive because their skeletons are unable to keep up with their rapid growth. This, combined with a lack of space and cleaning is blatant cruelty (“Chickens”).” Another case, among many, is the lives of industrially raised pigs. Breeding sows are forcibly impregnated, left in a gestation crate, and then after only a few weeks their babies are taken away and confined to a pen until they are market ready (“Pigs”). Despite this suffering, proponents of CAFOs continue to believe that with proper management, location, and monitoring these systems are an effective way to feed our growing population because the process produces low cost, easily accessible meat, dairy, and eggs (Hribar 3). This has been successful when analyzing only the short term, internal costs – such as labor, materials, energy use, etc. These meat prices are seemingly low which gives the allusion that all is well. The big problem lies in the fact that the food system economy externalizes costs to reduce prices and increase profits (Sandler 24). Externalized costs are those not factored into production, and because of this society ends up paying for them. An example of this is increased automation of jobs. Although it saves the company money short term, the subsequent rise in unemployment leads to a greater reliance on social services which must be paid long term via taxpayer money (“External Cost vs”). Like the concept of automation, consuming low cost meat and other animal byproducts produces external costs such as environmental and public health issues that society ultimately pays for. A review of a multitude of studies reveals that industrial animal agriculture is a linking factor between a long list of problems – some of which include climate change, ocean dead zones, deforestation, food safety issues, and preventable health problems such as obesity (Bowling). The destruction of environmental health is the first significant problem stemming from industrial animal agriculture. The confinement and concentration of factory farming; overuse of synthetic materials; clearing and degradation of forests; and overuse of growth hormones and antibiotics are negatively affecting the well-being of our entire planet. Animal agriculture is abusing the land by using resources faster than they can be replenished – it destroys the necessary natural balance. In the United States 80 percent of freshwater is utilized for agriculture (Sandler 87). Yet, somehow, we can’t get clean water to places like Flint, Michigan where people, predominately people of color, only have access to water that is filled with corrosive material (Ganim and Tran). The overuse of resources for animal agriculture has a variety of interconnected externalities. Another example of this is the industries immense contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. A study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency found that livestock production accounts for 24% of global emissions. This is more than the emissions of all transportation – which accounts for 14% ("Global Greenhouse"). This demonstrates that animal agriculture needs to be targeted as a source for reduction. Without taking steps to transform our actions, climate change will cause a slow, but sure, increase of environmental and human health issues. Human survival is dependent upon the “stability and functioning of the biosphere’s ecological and physical systems (Climate Change 1).” Therefore, a rapid change of climate conditions causes concerning human health issues. For example, the exposure to extreme weather has the propensity to increase the amount of air pollutants and aeroallergens such as spores and molds (Climate Change 11). Increased exposure to air pollutants aggravates preexisting cardiovascular and respiratory issues by adding stress to the heart and lungs. It can also produce permanent health effects such as loss of full lung function, development of respiratory diseases such as asthma, and a shortened life span ("Health Effects"). The effects of animal agriculture are clearly widespread. It is incredibly concerning how animal agriculture so directly contributes to environmental destruction, and subsequently human health. The suffering and death of animals benefits nobody. Animals are being tortured, mutilated, and killed on a grand scale. Our ecosphere is slowly collapsing. Humans all around the globe are facing serious health disparities that effect multiple aspects of their lives. This is not just by coincidence. Animal agriculture is a linking factor and massive contributor to these problems. Present day animal liberation activism seeks to address these issues head on, and make the changes necessary to protect our planet and all beings who inhabit it – human and non-human. This overwhelming amount of philosophical discussion and empirical evidence provides a compelling argument to join the animal liberation movement – which, as this paper focuses on, can be as simple as adopting a vegan or vegetarian diet. Ultimately, the movement upholds the belief that the abolishment of domination over non-human animals is necessary out of moral obligation as well as for the protection of our planet. These arguments do no good if we fail to recognize how social and cultural constructs effect the success of the animal rights movement. Thus, this paper will target the constructs of American masculinity. Gendering of Diet Studies An analysis of several secondary sources reveals that there is an association between a person’s gender and the probability of them consuming a vegan or vegetarian diet. The first of these sources, “Real Men Don’t Eat (Vegetable) Quiche: Masculinity and the Justification of Meat Consumption,” was published in 2013 by Dr. Hank Rothgerber in Psychology of Men and Masculinity. This article reports the findings of two studies conducted by Rothgerber that link eating attitudes and dietary choices to gender identity and presentation. In the first study, he sought to identify the justifications meat eaters use and to examine how gender is connected to these meat eating justifications. The results demonstrated that males justified meat eating more often, endorsed pro-meat attitudes, denied animal suffering, were more likely to believe in a human over non-human animal hierarchy, and provided more religious and health justifications for their animal consumptions. The second study was a replication of the first, but was focused solely on the connection between masculinity and meat eating justification. Essentially, he wanted to test if men that identified as more masculine had higher rates of meat eating justification. What he found was that males who rated higher on the masculinity also reported greater consumption of meat. A more recent article entitled “Are Vegans the Same as Vegetarians? The Effect of Diet on Perceptions of Masculinity” was published in Appetite on February 1, 2016. In this study social psychologist Dr. Margaret Thomas aims to provide more information on the ways that diet effects gendered perceptions of other people. Her literature review reveals first and foremost that the food a person consumes influences how they will be viewed by others. Secondly, she recognizes that gender does in fact play a role in this. She finds that foods are culturally and socially primed by gender, and that consumption of meat is particularly associated with maleness. Lastly, she discovered research revealing perceptions of non-meat eaters that recognizes “ingroup bias and outgroup homogeneity.” Her study works to fill the gaps of the limitations in this prior research with four different studies. The first study replicates earlier research on gendered perceptions of vegetarians, but instead of relying on assumptions she specifically labels the targets as vegetarian to get a direct correlation. This study indicated that the acceptance of vegetarianism among men is on the rise. The second study built on the first study by including veganism as well. It demonstrated that using veganism as a research term instead of vegetarianism provides clarity and minimizes statistical variably. Study three focused solely on vegan diets because, as proven in study two, veganism helps to provide a more controlled assessment. The results showed that vegan diets were perceived as much less masculine than omnivorous diet. In the final study, they use the same concept of Study 3 but clarify that is a complete choice to follow the vegan diet and it is not out of necessity, and this helped to clarify that it is the act of choosing to follow a vegan diet that is associated with a loss of masculinity because they are choosing to deviate from social norms. In November 2016 edition of Appetite, the article “Meat, Morals, and Masculinity” was published by Dr. Steven Heine and Matthew Ruby. The project focuses on the perceptions of those who abstain from the consumption of meat- whether it be for animal welfare, personal health, concern for the environment, or disgust at the sensory qualities of meat. Ruby and Heine give a quick background as to the history of the correlation between meat and masculinity. They additionally cite some previous research done on the perceptions of high-fat vs. low-fat diets it their correlation to morality and masculinity. In their study, the work to demonstrate a correlation of vegetarian diets and an increased perception by others of virtuosity and masculinity. They had 273 participants from University of British Colombia and online from sites such as Facebook, Livejournal, and Veggieforums. It is important to keep in mind that most of the respondents were white female identified vegetarians. In the first study, they were asked to rate a target profile by an eight-point scale of tolerant of others/intolerant of others, ethical/unethical, masculine/not masculine, feminine/ not feminine, etc. as well as the healthiness of the target profiles foot choices on the same eight-point scale of healthy/unhealthy. The results show that both the vegetarian and omnivorous participants perceived the vegetarian target profile to be more virtuous. In the second study, they use the same target profile rating system, but instead substitute virtuosity for masculinity. The results demonstrate that vegetarian men were perceived as less masculine than vegetarian men. From this study, the cultural implications of the consumption of meat are evident, and that it is possible men- consciously or subconsciously- consume animal products in the process of seeking validation of their masculinity. Also in November 2016, an article entitled "Is Meat Male? A Quantitative Multimethod Framework to Establish Metaphoric Relationships” was published in the Journal of Consumer Research. The study, predominately authored by Dr. Paul Rozin, specifically focuses on the links between gender and meat consumption. This intensive research project utilizes six methods to investigate the link between maleness and meat. These methods include implicit association tests, free associations, indirect- scenario-based inferencing, direct measurement profiling, preference or choice study, and gendered languages. These methods were used to prove or disprove the following hypotheses: maleness and meat are linked in thought; it is specifically mammal muscle that has male implications; feminized protein (milk and dairy products, eggs, and meats that come from explicitly female organs- e.g., placenta, ovaries) will be psychologically linked to femaleness; foods that have received more culinary treatment, that is are more distant from raw, as a result of being traditionally processed more by females, will have more psychological femaleness; in the service of gender identity maintenance, females will prefer less involvement with meat; and measures of the maleness of meat will be more pronounced in individuals with feminist affiliations. The first study- implication association tests- had 308 participants that strongly demonstrated an implicit link between meat and maleness. Free associations, the second study, utilized questionnaires on 439 University of Pennsylvania students and showed a lack of gendered associations to words such as milk, beef, steak, etc. However, when they did get gendered associations, they were more likely to be male. Thirdly, utilizing indirect-scenario- based inferencing, 569 students were asked to rate the target profiles of a described man and woman. The responses confirmed a link of higher perceived masculinity and meat consumption. In the fourth study, a questionnaire was used to measure direct profiling. The 379 student’s responses showed a “definite link between maleness and meat, judged by maleness-femaleness differences, but concerning primarily mammal muscle.” Study five was a preference or choice study that had 1,825 female respondents and 877 male answer questions that identified their food preferences. The results showed a higher percentage of females avoiding red meat and who classified themselves as partial vegans. In the final study, gendered languages were used to test gender associations in twenty languages. This study showed, of 100 cases, that there was a clear tending for food/ meat related words. From these studies the first, second, fourth, and fifth hypothesis were directly supported. The third was disconfirmed, and the sixth was weakly supported by study four. These four cases strongly demonstrate that there is an association between diet and gender. More specifically, men are less likely to consume a vegan or vegetarian diet. While these studies prove a dependence between diet and gender, they do not provide an adequate discussion of the reasoning behind it. The first step to understanding the association between meat eating and masculinity is to define “masculinity.” Masculinity Evolutionary biologists believe that there are scientific processes that play a role in the development of masculinity. In Men: Evolutionary and Life History Richard Bribiescas explains that “an organism’s physiology (nature) is in many ways meant to respond to a changing environment (nurture) (Bribiescas 12). Like any other species of animals, humans are a part of the evolutionary process of natural selection that forces adaptation for survival (Bribiescas 29). Human animals have adaptive traits that respond to the environment. For example, if in a high stress situation such as food shortage the challenge will “stimulate and organism’s biology to alter the expression of a gene or a suite of genes (Bribiescas 48).” The pressure put on men to perform masculinity has an impact on the adaptive traits necessary to respond to the environment. Social and cultural influences have clearly impacted the evolution of masculinity, and from this we can conclude that masculinity is a socially constructed identity. Essentially, as we age we are socialized to follow certain gender roles and expectations based on social and cultural norms (“Men and Maculinities”). Thematically sorted research from renowned academics, philosophers, sociologists, and psychologists shows four major constructs that formulate the sociocultural definition of masculinity that men feel compelled to follow. These four overarching constructs include misogyny (social power), stoicism, aggression, and economic power. While each of these constructs have different contributing factors, the literature ultimately concludes the overarching issue to be patriarchal control and androcentrism. To understand these characteristics, we must address and understand the concepts of patriarchy and androcentrism. Patriarchy is defined as “institutionalized power relationships that give men power over women (Dalla 1).” It is a deeply engrained social system that institutionalizes the dominance of men in the public sphere – which subsequently lessens the autonomy and silences the voices of women. Western civilization is characterized by androcentrism – which is defined as “male – centeredness within a culture’s ideology, institutions, traditions, and lifeways. Underlying androcentrism is the unstated assumption that maleness is the basic, normative state. Femaleness is correspondingly devalued as not – male and therefore lacking and/or flawed (Renfro 8).” Misogyny (Social Power) A patriarchal, androcentric culture values masculinity over femininity. Subsequently, misogyny has become one of the defining factors in the development of masculinity. Very simply put, misogyny is the contempt for and institutionalized prejudice of women. While interviewing California State University, Chico professor of Sociology Dr. Suzanne Slusser she stated, “masculinity is characterized first and foremost as the anti-feminine (Slusser).” Her powerful assertion inspired further research to demonstrate exactly how this distain for femininity is exhibited by men, and what those actions express about the standards of manhood. Three prominent themes drawn from this exploration include the consumption of pornography, homosociality, and homophobic rhetoric. In 2009, prominent author and sociologist Michael Kimmel published an ethnographic book entitled Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men in which he observed and interviewed four hundred men aged sixteen to twenty-six. He sought to analyze these men to understand and explain the motivation for their participation in masculine/male prescriptions and proscriptions, and how that – combined with present day hyper-connectivity and homogenization – affects male’s transition from adolescence to adulthood. In terms of race, ethnicity, age, and sexuality he spoke to a diverse group of men, and what he found was multiple similar behaviors that bind them together. The most distinctive of these being the consumption of pornography. A pornographic culture is pervasive in the United States. The gross sales of all pornographic media range between ten to fourteen billion dollars per year – which, notably, is higher than the combined revenues of ABC, NBC, and CBS (Kimmel 169). More concerning, is the normalization of pornographic material in mainstream media. As journalist Pamela Paul states “pornography is so seamlessly integrated into popular culture that embarrassment or surreptitiousness is no longer part of the equation (Kimmel 170).” Media, music, and advertising are inundated with sexualized images of women, and there are consequences. The overarching one being an indoctrinated sense of entitlement to women’s bodies. Kimmel offers an important explanation as to why this is so problematic: “the time – honored way for a guy to prove that he is a real man is to score with a woman … The problem, however, is that for guys, girls often feel like the primary obstacle to proving manhood. They are not nearly as compliant as guys say they would like them to be … This is why pornography is so appealing to guys: the pornographic woman’s middle name is compliance. Even when she doesn’t comply right away, she always comes around eventually – and passionately (Kimmel 170).” Pornography becomes an outlet to express the frustration and contempt for women who reject the sexual acts that they think they are entitled to – as Kimmel states “the pornographic universe becomes a refuge from the harsh reality of a more gender equitable world than has ever existed (Kimmel 177).” A point of interest from his research is the fact that men use porn to bond with each other. He details how men, presumably straight men, will sit together in a common space together to watch porn. Not to become sexually aroused, but to get angry. In each observation of group porn intake, the men would yell at the girl on the screen, talk about what they would like to “do to her,” call her degrading names, etc. (Kimmel 187). Without a doubt, this is misogyny in action. Even more concerning is how this simulated entitlement transfers to sexual interaction with women in the flesh. Sex often becomes a competition and an act of male bonding. Kimmel states “hooking up may have less to do with guy’s relationship with women and more to do with guys’ relationship with other guys (Kimmel 206).” Women become the pawn in a misogynistic game because they do not deserve respect as an independent, autonomous being. They are a means to an end. This perceived utilization of women as a tool for men to prove their manhood brings up the next noticeable behavior observed by most men in the study – homosociality. Homosociality, as defined in “Toward a Homosocial Theory of Sex Roles: An Explanation of the Sex Segregation of Social Institutions,” is the “nonsexual attractions held by men (and women) for members of their own sex (Lipman – Blumen).” Male homosociality is rooted in misogyny, and is viewed as a way of maintaining hegemonic masculinity. Men are raised to constantly seek the approval of other men, and subsequently homosociality is a defining construct of masculinity. Homosociality is never to be confused with homosexuality. As much as men seek approval of each other, they are forbidden from having anything more than a platonic relationship with other men. Misogyny and homophobia are inextricably linked. The association of gay males with feminine characteristics casts them out of the “men’s club.” When every sign of femininity, even in other men, is punishable it is hard to deny that misogyny is not a defining aspect of masculinity. Stoicism Another defining behavior of manhood is the expectation to be a detached, sturdy, powerhouse protector. As Peter F. Murphy states in Studs, Tools, and the Family Jewels, “the most powerful cultural metaphor for masculinity is the machine, a cold disembodied, efficacious piece of equipment… True masculinity as a finely tuned, well oiled, unemotional, hard, and cost – effective apparatus deeply informs that way we conceive of manhood (Murphy 17). Femininity is associated with nurturing, care, and emotion. So along with the disdain of femininity comes the refusal to be expressive of care and emotion.  Boys don’t cry. Don’t be a sissy. Quit being a little bitch. Be a man! This rhetoric, used by peers, parents, media, etc. keeps men’s emotions in check. In an article entitled “Get Over It, Men and the Cost of Emotional Repression” writer Noah Brand further explains this distain for emotion, “A man is strong, we are told, and emotions are weak. Emotions make you vulnerable… Emotions prove that you are a human being, instead of an unstoppable success robot. And men, naturally, must always be unstoppable success robots, so that means that all feelings of fear, sadness, loss, regret, love, pain, weakness, uncertainty, and damn near everything else must be repressed. Expressing any of these is a failure to sufficiently perform masculinity, and this will be enforced (Brand).” Men are expected to be these powerhouse machines that can easily cope with any problem – which is incredibly problematic. Men make up most suicide victims, stress induced heart attacks, alcohol include liver damage, and deaths in fights (Brand). These can be linked back to the inability of men to express the problems that they are struggling with. It is considered not masculine to seek out mental health assistance, or even the comfort and advice of a friend. Because of fear of being marginalized, men are less likely to reach out for help before the problem gets to a dire stage. This policing of masculinity creates a type of social system and code among men that is not to be broken because of a risk of marginalization- even when what is happening is against their personal moral or ethical code. In Guyland Kimmel provided examples of events such as the Glen Ridge Rape – in which a group of thirteen student athletes brutally raped a woman with mental disabilities. They set up chairs movie theatre style so some of the men could sit and watch as the lead perpetrators coerced her to perform oral sex, forced a baseball bat in her vagina, and screamed degrading names at her. While some of the men left out of guilt, none of them reported it – which can be explained by a fear of being out casted for feeling any type of sympathy, compassion, or remorse (Kimmel 64-66). Incidents like these are concerningly common, and are often a part of hazing rituals in male centered groups like athletic team, fraternities, and gangs. These rituals often involve humiliation of both the men themselves, and the women that they target. Their purpose is to make men withstand a “real man” test, to show that they can take on any and all humiliation and pain without showing weakness. Once they can prove themselves as a “real man,” then they can be a part of the group. While it is individual men who are committing these acts- or simply staying silent when they are committed- it is necessary to look beyond the individual. A 2015 documentary entitled The Mask You Live, directed by Jennifer Siebel Newson, gets at the root of this issue by answering the question “why is the phrase ‘be a man’ so destructive?” To do so they introduce and interview a diverse group of men. We heard the stories of young boys, adolescents, adults, and elderly men from all walks of life; and how their experiences shaped their lives and well-being. Every single one of them explained that the pressure to be masculine meant the pressure to never show weakness - that they must “stop with the tears, stop with the emotions. [Because] if you’re going to be a man in this world you better learn how to dominate and control people and circumstances (Sibel Newson).” Aggression Like stoicism, aggression has become a pinnacle of American masculinity – which is fueled by the expectation to be dominant and in control. Dr. Jackson Katz is a groundbreaking academic leader in analyzing issues such as gender, race, and violence. In 1999 here released the powerful documentary Tough Guise, in which he examines the systematic pressure of men to be “emotionless, powerhouse machines (Brand).” He seeks to explain the reasoning behind this, as well as the effects this has on society.  The overarching framework of the entire documentary is based on the concept that men are putting on what Katz refers to as a “tough guise,” in which he is referring to men’s reliance on violence to give an illusion of dominance and control. He further explains this façade of masculinity as “[men are] putting it on as a survival mechanism – they have to do it to survive in whatever peer culture they happen to be in. But putting on the tough guise comes with a cost and that is a cost in terms of damage to their psyches and their ability to be decent human beings (Tough Guise). In looking at crime statistics it is abundantly clear that this “guise” comes with a significant cost, considering that 85% of those committing murder are men; 95% of dating violence is committed by men; and they are responsible for an estimated 85 to 95% of child sex abuse. Additionally, 99.8% of people in prison convicted of rape are men (Tough Guise). These high rates of violent crime being committed by men are not just happening by coincidence. There are a multitude of different sociocultural systems that contribute to the internalization of toxic masculinity – of which mass media is the most predominant. Young men, ages 16 to 26, make up the largest group of media consumers (Kimmel 144) – of which gaming is becoming the fastest rising sector. The video game industry rakes in 6.35 billion dollars per year with approximately 225 million games and consoles being sold, and 60% of these consumers are male (Kimmel 145). Kimmel refers to these as “escapist” games. When men are unable to assert their dominance in real life they can channel this anger into violent games to gain back a sense of empowerment and accomplishment. The existence and continued normalization of violent and misogynistic video games, and like media, speaks volumes about our cultural values. In the 2007 documentary Dreamworlds III produced by Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation, Sut Jhally he states “Fantasies are fun but sometimes the line between fantasy and reality is blurred and the images of the dream world in that respect are not innocent, they are not just images. The stories they tell are firmly implicated in the gender and power relations in our society (Dreamworlds 3 Desire)” Finally, another noteworthy impact on the construction of masculinity is American militarism. In “Violence and the Masculine Mystique” author Lucy Komisar reviews the ways masculinity is deeply embedded in America culture. One of the biggest links she makes is between the violence of American politics, war, and masculinity. She believes that militarism leads to America’s “[institutionalization] of violence and male supremacy as measure of nation pride (Komisar 203).” Our political leaders, nearly all male, are the ones declaring war. Subsequently, men – who comprise 82% of the selected reserve force – are expected to be the ones carrying out these orders (2015 Demographics 18). The military values “discipline and hierarchy, prioritizes the group over the individual, and uses specific rituals convey important meanings and transitions (Hsu 4).” This focus on discipline, group dependency, and ritualistic behavior is awfully reminiscent of the concepts described in the section about stoicism. Instilling these behaviors into men allows the military complex to thrive on dominance and control. The military is dependent on gender roles to recruit men – they convince men that fighting for their country will demonstrate their strength and nobility. Our country essentially depends on men’s insecurity, and utilizes it to uphold institutionalized violence and aggression. Economic Power The United States economic structure is characterized as mixed market capitalist, and exhibits a commitment to market principles such as the importance of free enterprise and individualism. This is not to say that the government plays no role, as regulation is needed to address issues, such as education, that should not be left to the private market. American capitalism is based on profit motive – meaning it is driven by competition and greed. Ultimately, it is a system characterized by inequality. This is evident in the fact that the richest 1% of Americans own 34% of the wealth, and the richest 10% own 74% of the wealth (Global Wealth 121). In “What is Socialist Feminism?” feminist theorist Barbra Ehrenreich explains this inequitable distribution. She states “inequality arises from processes which are intrinsic to capitalism as an economic system. A minority of people (the capitalist class) own all the factories/energy sources/resources, etc. which everyone else depends on in order to live. The great majority (the working class) must work out of sheer necessity, under conditions set by the capitalists, for the wages the capitalists (Ehrenreich 71).” It is a system fueled by the forced exploitation of the working class. A defining factor of capitalism is its reliance on class structure. Traditionally, men occupy the public sphere – meaning that they are more likely to be actors in political, economic, educational, and cultural organizations. It is in this sphere that “the terrain of class and class struggle is located (Morgan 169). As such, there has become this connection of men and class. In the 19th century the concept of male as “the breadwinner” came about, in which men are expected to be the sole provider of the family wage (Morgan 168). The standard is then set for men to measure up to, with a consequence of emasculation upon failure. Their economic status then directly impacts their self-worth and personal values. The modern-day capitalist economic structure is one of the biggest contributors to toxic masculinity. In Guyland Kimmel explains that, “the entire landscape of Guyland is structured by the massive social and economic changes in the United States over the past several decades; as the economy has shifted from a culture of production to a culture of consumption men experience their masculinity less as providers and protectors, and more as consumers, as ornaments (Kimmel 17).’” In Capitalism and Inequality Jerry Z. Miller discusses how industrial period jobs were mostly dependent on the physical strength of men. As we have entered a postindustrial economy there is less value in this, and an increased emphasis on knowledge. The lessened worth of these stereotypically masculine skills, combined with the rise of women obtaining education and entering the public sphere, is problematic. In Guyland Kimmel conducted an interview with a group of Brooklyn firefighters, and when he asked them what they thought about the rise of female firefighters there was aura of silent scorn. Eventually, one of them spoke up to angrily say “those bitches have taken over (Kimmel 11).” Women “taking” men’s jobs cause them to feel as if their identities are being stripped. Years of compounded male domination makes it feel as if it their right to control the public sphere. The inability to do so stirs up misogynistic feelings of contempt – which they release through outlets such as the consumption of pornography and sexual violence. Connection Clearly, there are deeply rooted implications of American manhood, but the question is how this affects the animal rights movement. The studies previously mentioned clearly demonstrated that there is a link between gender and the likelihood to adopt a vegan or vegetarian diet in support of the animal rights movement. Multiple renowned academics have provided an analysis of how the above traits of manhood negatively impact the animal rights movement. In reviewing concepts of both American masculinity and the exploitation of animals there becomes a consistent, interweaving pattern of dominance and control. Men are taught that their value is dependent on the domination of other beings – they are to show no weakness or compassion, as those are traits that are linked with femininity. Culturally, in general, we are taught as human animals that non-human animals exist for our domination and usage. In the Pornography of Meat Carol J. Adams states “pleasurable consumption of consumable beings is the dominant perspective of our culture. It is what subjects do to objects, what someone does to something (Adams13).” Men are viewed as subjects, women as objects. Humans as subjects, nonhumans as objects. She explains that meat has long been a symbol of patriarchy, and is synonymous with manhood and power. She discusses how people in power have always been the ones consuming animal products. Women and children are more likely to eat vegetables, fruits, and grains rather than meat. Sexism is so prevalent that is affects everything in our lives- including the seemingly simple act of eating. Adams makes the claim that “meat eating is an integral part of male dominance; vegetarianism acts as a sign of disease within a patriarchal culture (Adams 217).” Adams makes some very insightful connections between this conquest of women and the conquest of animals to prove power. Specifically, in looking at advertising for the meat industry it is astonishing how often women are sexualized for the purpose of selling meat (The Pornography of Meat). Take for example advertising for fast food companies, such as Carl’s Jr., who is infamous for using celebrities in scantily clad clothing being seemingly aroused by the burger their holding. The argument for this type of advertising is that “sex sells.” If it was solely the concept of sex that was enticing people to purchase services and goods then we would see an equal proportion of men and women being sexualized in media. We clearly don’t, and that is because it is not sex that sells- it is the exploitation of women that does. These advertisements pray on the weakness of men who have been culturally programmed to believe that they are entitled. Advertising draws on the contempt men have (Kimmel 5). They want to make men feel powerful, and the easiest way to do that is subtly demonstrating to men that if they purchase a product or good that they are a “someone” who has control over a “something.” This, combined with a culturally ingrained disdain for femininity, contributes to viewing women and nonhuman animals as consumables. Whether it be through prostitution or pornography, men are literally able to purchase and control women’s bodies. Historically, men have always had a certain level of control over women’s bodies- coverture laws, lack of women’s reproductive autonomy, withholding of women’s education. In “Ecofeminism and Climate Change,” Greta Gaard defines this as the “Father Knows Best” approach (Gaard 25). Essentially, men view themselves as such superior beings and have been given so much power and privilege that they rule over and constrict women’s lives, without acknowledging that women are autonomous beings with individual purpose. This is reminiscent of Tom Regan’s argument that all beings have inherent value (Gruen 36). One of the greatest points that Adams makes in The Sexual Politics of Meat is on the concept of the absent referent- which is used to ignore the fact that animals and women are individuals with purpose. Meat requires death, and the absence of life is seemingly ignored. As a society, we separate eating meat and the life that was forcibly taken to produce it. Similarly, men seem to lack recognition that the sexualization and commodification of women comes at a price. It’s not a price they must pay, and so they are able to morally separate their pleasure from our problems. Essentially, both women and animals are rendered as subjects through the morally lacking structure of absent referent (Adams 219). Therefore, the fight for freedom of both must be conjoined. Adams makes a powerful point in her conclusion of The Sexual Politics of Meat in which she states “in reality women in the Western, industrialized world today are like the animals in a modern zoo. There are no bars. It appears that cages have been abolished. Yet in practice women are still kept in their place just as firmly as the animals are kept in their closures (Adams 219).” The ability of men to obtain dominance and control is reliant on hierarchical structure. Men maintain dominance because their lives are framed by human exceptionalism and patriarchal control (Gruen 2). In “Why Animals Matter” Gruen breaks down and nullifies the concept of human exceptionalism by elucidating the thoughts of Aristotle, Chrysippus, Descartes, and Kant. One of the biggest points that she makes is in reviewing studies proving non-human animal’s abilities in regard to tool use, language use, theory of mind, and ethical engagement. If non-human animals are able to perform these “human” functions, at least to some degree, then are human animals really that exceptional (Gruen 21)? There seems to be no discussion of the ways that non-human animals deeply enrich human lives, and instead are just pawns. Similarly, to the way men described women in Kimmel’s Guyland. Hierarchical structure that values one life over the other is inherently toxic and destined for failure. The capitalist economic structure of America thrives on this, and is a large linking factor between masculinity and the disregard for animal exploitation. As discussed, capitalism relies on forcible exploitation of the weak to serve those in power (Ehrenreich 71). What “human exceptionalism” really means is “white, elite, rich, men are in a position to exploit those unlike them, and will do so against their will.” Their ability to succeed rests on the exploitation of others. Hierarchical power and capitalism feed on the destruction of women and non-human animal lives. She explains that male supremacy is the centrality of imperialism, militarism, and capitalism (Ehrenreich 73). These destructive systems were created by men to serve men. In “Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual Inequality,” Peggy Sanday surveyed over one hundred non-technological cultures and found that plant based societies were the most egalitarian, whereas where they were greater amounts of meat consumer there were greater indications of patriarchal control. This aids in the demonstration that masculine hierarchical control and meat eating go hand in hand. Greta Gaard believes that in order to fight inequality we must understand how every being participates in the Master Model of Oppression – which essentially means to recognize our privilege and to hold ourselves accountable for actions that may harm other beings (Gaard 30). Lori Gruen further explains this when she states, “If we can begin to see other animals as making claims upon us, can make those claims intelligible to ourselves and to others, and can respond in the right ways to those claims, we will become better ethical agents and more robust selves, with a more compassionate and, I would say, accurate- sense of our place in the animal kingdom (Gruen 43).” Essentially, radical change will be made only in the absence of hierarchical, capitalist structure. When considering the correlation between American masculine ideals and the exploitation of animals, there are some key factors that simply cannot be ignored. There are hundreds of years of male supremacy compounded with a hierarchical social and economic system that makes change incredibly difficult. The existing literature has done an excellent job of explaining the root causes of problematic masculinity in America, and demonstrates the need for compassionate and inclusive social movements such as feminism. As exemplified, there are a few authors who have made excellent connections as to why constructs of masculinity contribute to lessened likelihood to support animal rights, but the conversation must be continued to push further for a truly free and equitable society. Synthesis: American society is set up in a way that has, and will continue to, produce drastic exploitation. To say that men have “granted” women rights does not mean that change is made – it means that men have so much power they can decide who and who not to give rights to. The same way that the animal liberation movement strives to “grant” animals their personal autonomy. This concept of having to fight for equal rights and convince people to give us rights would not exist if the structure of society wasn’t designed to systemically keep subordinates in their place. To create true change, we must recognize “that the true liberation of one oppressed group cannot happen without the liberation of all oppressed people (Carastathis 20).” Audre Lorde explains this powerfully when she states “if I fail to recognize them as other faces of myself, then I am contributing not only to each of their oppressions but also to my own, and the anger which stands between us then must be used for clarity and mutual empowerment, not for evasion by guilt or further separation. I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own. And I am not free as long as one person of Color remains chained. Nor is any of you (Carastathis 20).” We need to listen to the voices, heard or unheard, of all who are oppressed and work to understand the interconnectedness of our experiences. This requires an understanding of the concept of intersectionality. Intersectionality is a conceptual framework that was developed in the 1970s that focuses on grasping the understanding that “race/ ethnicity, class, and gender (as well as other systems of categorization and oppression) do not act independently in societies but rather function as interlocking systems of oppression or matrixes of domination (Renfro 14).” It makes visible our shared and unshared experiences to celebrate our identities and unite us in the fight to end oppression. Ecofeminist Greta Gaard is a huge proponent of applying the concept of intersectionality to both human and non – human animals. In “Ecofeminism and Climate Change” she states, “feminist scholars have invoked the concept of intersectionality in order to describe the ‘intra- actions’ of race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, ability and other forms of human difference, using this analysis to develop more nuanced understandings of power, privilege, and oppression. But fewer scholars have critiqued the humanism or intersectionality, or proposed examining the exclusions of species and ecosystems from intersectional identities, addressing the ways that even the most marginalized of humans may participated in the Master Model process of instrumentalization when it comes to nonhuman and earth others (Gaard 30).” This is an important and influential notion, and needs to be the future of the animal liberation movement – which is in direct correlation with the women’s liberation movement. To gain some more insight on this concept I conducted research using a simple random survey asking for demographic information and dietary choice – either vegetarian, vegan, or carnivore. The Chi Square Test of Association was used with a confidence level of 95%. Not surprisingly, the two identities that correlate with a high likelihood of consuming animal products are income and education level. Animal products, which are almost all factory farmed, are cheap. Those with lower income and education often do not have the time or resources to make a political statement with the food that they are consuming, as they are too busy trying to survive in a capitalist economy. Economic and class oppression are connected to the oppression of animals through capitalism. Racism is also a predominant linking factor, which makes it important to note that people of color had a stronger association with consuming animal products – which can, again, be linked to capitalism. Take for example the fact one of every three African American children and one of every four Latino children live in poverty – which is two times higher than the rate for white children (The Colors 1). This means that people of color are making up a disproportionate of the low-income bracket – which is the bracket most likely to consume animal products. It is systems of oppression such as capitalism that connect the struggles of all marginalized groups – which is why the conception of intersectionality is so important. To win the battle we must fight together, and the first step in doing that is uniting – despite our differences. Conclusion: As research established, our patriarchal, androcentric culture is oppressive in nature – for all genders. There needs to be greater discussion about the effects of patriarchy on the development of men and the behaviors that define masculinity. It is typically only men’s studies scholars such as Michael Kimmel and Michael Messner who are the ones discussing and addressing this issue while mainstream feminism seems to overlook it. Interviews of young men conducted in The Mask You Live In heartbreakingly demonstrated how the essentialization of masculinity traps men into a small definition which they must force themselves to fit. To make the concept of veganism and animal rights appealing to men we must recognize the struggle that men are facing; validate their experiences and feelings; and promote change on an individual and institutional level. To end systems of interlocking oppression we must recognize how ALL systems of oppression interlock, human and non – human. There absolutely needs to be a greater push to make the ideals of animal liberation and veganism more present in popular culture. Finally, we need to make visible the invisible. We must get people to look beyond the veils of patriarchal, carnist culture to understand how we are destroying our lives, the lives of others, and ultimately the life of our planet.  Works Cited Adams, Carol J. The Pornography of Meat. New York, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003. ---. "The Sexual Politics of Meat." The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist- Vegetarian Critical Theory, by Carol J. Adams, Continuum International Publishing Group, 1980, pp. 47-63. Allen, Colin, and Michael Trestman. "Animal Consciousness." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/. Accessed 23 Apr. 2017. "Animal Feeding Operations." National Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/plantsanimals/livestock/afo/. Accessed 7 May 2017. "Animal Feeding Operations." United States Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/npdes/animal-feeding-operations-afos. Accessed 7 May 2017. "Animal Rights." Animal Rights, California State University, Sacramento, www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/animal%20rights.htm. Accessed 26 Apr. 2017. Arnerson, R. "Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill." Digital file. "Background Information on the New Race/ Ethnicity Codes." Office of Institutional Planning and Research, University of Florida, ir.aa.ufl.edu/race-and-ethnicity-survey#New Race and Ethnicity Standards. Accessed 15 Apr. 2017. Boddice, Rob, editor. Anthropocentrism: Humans, Animals, and Environments. Brill, 2011. Bowling, Adam. "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It." Stanford Environmental Law Journal. Environmental Law Review Syndicate, journals.law.stanford.edu/stanford-environmental-law-journal- elj/blog/leading-cause-everything-one-industry-destroying-our-planet-and-our-ability- thrive-it. Accessed 11 May 2017. Brand, Noah. "Get Over It. Men and the Cost of Emotional Repression." The Good Men Project, 26 June 2013, goodmenproject.com/featured-content/get-over-it-men-and-the-cost-of- emotional-repression/. Accessed 13 May 2017. Cameras, CAFOs, and Pork Chops. Performance by Gabriela Wolfe, TEDx Talks, 2015. "Chickens." Factory Farming, Farm Sanctuary, www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/factory- farming/chickens/#. Accessed 10 May 2017. Climate Change and Human Health Risks and Responses. World Health Organization, 2003, www.who.int/globalchange/publications/climchange.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2017. The Colors of Poverty: Why Racial & Ethnic Disparities Persist. Issue brief no. 16, National Poverty Center, Jan. 2009, www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief16/PolicyBrief16.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2017. Dalla, Rochelle L. "Patriarchal System." Salem Press Encyclopedia, January. EBSCOhost, mantis.csuchico.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e rs&AN=96397564&site=eds-live. DeGrazia, David. Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction. New York, Oxford UP, 2002. Dreamworlds 3 Desire, Sex & Power in Music Video. Produced by Sut Jhally, Media Education Foundation, 2007. Ehrenreich, Barbara. "What Is Socialist Feminism?." Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine 57.3 (2005): 70-77. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Oct. 2016. "External costs vs Internal costs." Econation, econation.co.nz/external-costs/. Accessed 11 May 2017. Gaard, Greta. "Ecofeminism and Climate Change." Women's Studies International Forum 49.(2015): 20-33. ScienceDirect. Web. 11 Nov. 2016. Gaard, Greta, Dr. Interview. 21 Mar. 2017. Ganim, Sara, and Linh Tran. "How tap water became toxic in Flint, Michigan." CNN, www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/health/toxic-tap-water-flint-michigan/. Accessed 12 May 2017. "Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data." United States Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data. Accessed 9 May 2017. Global Wealth Databook. Credit Suisse Research Institute, Oct. 2010, publications.credit- suisse.com/tasks/render/file/index.cfm?fileid=88DC07AD-83E8-EB92- 9D5C3EAA87A97A77. Accessed 9 May 2017. Gruen, Lori. "Eating Animals." Ethics and Animals: An Introduction, New York, Cambridge U P, 2011, pp. 76-92. ---. "Why Animals Matter." Ethics and Animals: An Introduction, New York, Cambridge U P, 2011, pp. 1-33. Gurian-Sherman, Doug. "CAFOs Uncovered." Union of Concerned Scientists, 2008, www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/cafos- uncovered-executive-summary.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017. "Health Effects." Air Quality Information for the Sacramento Region, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, www.sparetheair.com/health.cfm?page=healthoverall. Hooks, Bell. The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. Simon and Schuester, 2004. Hribar, Carrie. Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on Communities. Edited by Mark Schultz, National Association of Local Boards of Health, 2010, www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017. Hsu, Jeanette, Ph.D. Overview of Military Culture. American Psychological Association, Sept. 2010, www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/military/military-culture.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2017. Jensen, Albert C. "Animal Rights Movement." Salem Press Encyclopedia, January. EBSCOhost, mantis.csuchico.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e rs&AN=89473958&site=eds-live. Kaplan, David, editor. The Philosophy of Food. University of California Press, 2012. Kimmel, Michael. "Welcome to Guyland." Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men, e-book, HarperCollins e-books, 2009, pp. 1-23. Komisar, Lucy. "Violence and the Masculine Mystique." The Forty - Nine Percent Majority: The Male Sex Role, edited by Deborah S. Davis and Robert Brannon, Addison - Wesley Publishing Company, 1976, pp. 201-15. Originally published in Washington Monthly, 1970. Lipka, Michael. "U.S. Religious Groups and Their Political Leanings." Pew Research Center, 23 Feb. 2016, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their- political-leanings/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2017. Lipman-Blumen, Jean. "Toward a Homosocial Theory of Sex Roles: An Explanation of the Sex Segregation of Social Institutions." Signs, no. 3, 1976, p. 15. EBSCOhost, mantis.csuchico.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e dsjsr&AN=edsjsr.3172990&site=eds-live. Lurz, Robert. "Animal Minds." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/ani- mind/#SH1a. Accessed 26 Apr. 2017. "Men and Masculinities." Women and Gender Advocacy Center, Colorado State University, www.wgac.colostate.edu/men-and-masculinities. Accessed 15 Apr. 2017. Morgan, David. "Class and Masculinity." Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities, edited by Michael Kimmel et al., Sage Publications, 2005, pp. 165-77. Originally published in Class and Masculinity, . Murphy, Peter F. Studs, Tools, and the Family Jewels. The University of Wisconsin Press, 2001. Nardi, Bonnie A. "Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual Inequality." Sex Roles, vol. 8, no. 11, Nov. 1982, pp. 1157-1160. EBSCOhost, mantis.csuchico.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=si h&AN=23804578&site=eds-live. "Pigs." Factory Farming, Farm Sanctuary, www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/factory-farming/pigs- used-for-pork/. Accessed 6 May 2017. "Race." United States Census Bureau, 12 Jan. 2017, www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn125.html. Accessed 15 Apr. 2017. "Rene Descartes." How to Do Animal Rights, Roger Panaman, www.animalethics.org.uk/descartes.html. Accessed 26 Apr. 2017. Renfro, Elizabeth. "De-Centering Glossary." 2011. MCGS Internship #489, compiled by Molly Heck, 2017, pp. 8-16. Rothgerber, Hank. "Real Men Don't Eat (Vegetable) Quiche: Masculinity and the Justification of Meat Consumption." Psychology of Men and Masculinity, PDF ed., vol. 14, no. 4, 2013, pp. 363-75. Sandler, Robert L. Food Ethics: The Basics. Routledge, 2014. Siebel Newsom, Jennifer, director. The Mask You Live In. Screenplay by Jessica Congdon, narrated by Caroline Heldman, composed by Eric Holland, produced by Jessica Anthony, Representation Project, 2015. Silbergeld, Ellen. Chickenizing Farms and Food. Baltimore, John Hopkins UP, 2016. Slusser, Suzanne, Dr. Interview. 1 Dec. 2016. Tanner, Julia. "Anthropocentrism." EBSCOhost, mantis.csuchico.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e rs&AN=89473961&site=eds-live. Accessed 7 May 2017. Thomas, Margaret A. "Are Vegans the Same as Vegetarians? The Effect of Diet on Perceptions of Masculinity." Appetite, vol. 97, 1 Feb. 2016, pp. 79-86. Tough Guise Violence, Media & the Crisis in Masculinity. Screenplay by Jackson Katz, 1999. 2015 Demographics Profile of the Military Community. United States Department of Defense, 2015, download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2015-Demographics- Report.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2017. Walls, David. Animal Rights Movement. David Walls, Sonoma State University, 2015, www.sonoma.edu/users/w/wallsd/animal-rights-movement.shtml. Wu, Tsui-Jung. A Critical Reflection of Christian Anthropocentrism and Ecological Crisis from a Taoist Perspective: A Contribution to Christian-Taoist Eco-Theology. 2011. University of Birmingham, MA thesis. E Theses, etheses.bham.ac.uk/4057/1/Wu13MPhil.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017.