Masculinity, muscles and meat-consumption; investigating

masculine identities in 18-25 year old amateur

bodybuilding men.

Blane Abercrombie

Acknowledgements

I would like to begin by extending my thanks to my supervisor, Laura Graham, who

without her expertise and input, this dissertation would not have been possible.

For putting up with me; I would like to thank my partner, Beti. Your knowledge and

input was invaluable – I would have been lost without you! So thank you.

Also, a huge thank you has to go to my family, as without them I would not have got

to where I am today.

Lastly, I would like to thank my participants for their willingness to honestly engage in

the project and giving up their time to contribute.

In memory of

31.1 billion each year, 85.2 million each day,

3.5 million each hour, 59,170 each minute…

‘Vegetables are for girls ... If your instincts tell you

following a vegetarian diet isn’t manly, you’re right.’

- Men’s Health

Abstract

As Rothgerber (2012) states, as arguments become more prominent that meat

consumption is harmful to the ‘environment, public health, and animals’ (p.1); those

who consume meat products will experience pressure to justify their meat eating.

This, incorporated with the comparatively lesser male concern for the rights of

animals, and the apparent animosity towards plant-based diets may be analysed as

a development of masculinity (Rothgerber, 2012). In this exploratory study, men

(aged between eighteen and twenty-five) gave accounts of their experiences of

participating in weight work and of their diet. The data were then integrated with pre-

existing theoretical research whilst at all times seeking to analyse through an ethical-

vegetarian-feminist lens. The data were gathered through the use of focus groups

(Morgan, 1998) before being submitted to a process of thematic analysis (Stenner,

1993). All participants presented discourses where attaining muscular physique was

a goal and consumption of meat was a considered aspect of that ambition. Having a

body shape that did not conform to those ideals was discriminated against and those

who did adhere to the standards were elevated to the superior within a social-

hierarchy. As well as the construction of social hierarchies based upon physical

attributes, they were also created along the lines of diet with the opposition of men’s

versus women’s food (Rogers, 2008) becoming apparent throughout. Data are

discussed in relation to the construction of masculine gender identity as well as its

relationship to the hierarchies of body ideals, diet and physical characteristics.

Literature Review

This paper seeks to investigate the relationship between masculine gender identities

performed by young men (18-25) who engage in bodybuilding activities and their

consumption of high-protein, animal based diets. Meat, primarily red meats –

particularly beef - has long been associated with masculinity across the world

(Adams, 1990; Rifkin, 1993; Sobal, 2005). By exploring the relationship between

these two areas, through a vegetarian-feminist-lens, the researcher seeks to

understand the nature of masculinities’ interactions with the consumption of a meat-

based diet and explore whether meat consumption is an extension of what could be

read as ‘overly masculinised identities’ (Scott, 2014). The term ‘vegetarian-feminist

lens’ refers to a line of analysis which seeks to understand the oppression of women

and gender minorities and the connections and intersections with the oppression of

nonhuman animals (Singer, 1975; Adams, 1990). Animal based diets have long

been associated with masculinity and ‘machismo’ and as such have been deemed to

be more appropriately consumed by men; thus perpetuating the binaries of men’s

versus women’s food, meat versus vegetables, and meat versus tofu (Rogers,

2008). As Connell (2005) has suggested, many attempts at defining what exactly

masculinity is and what it means to society have yielded nothing but incomplete,

vague and poor definitions. At the point of research The Oxford English Dictionary

(2015) has the definition of the ‘masculine’ as: ‘Having qualities or (an) appearance

which would traditionally be associated with men’. Dyer (1985) discussed the fluid

nature of masculinity stating that; it is not male sexuality but masculinity per se that

‘is a bit like air—you breathe it in all the time, but you aren’t aware of it much’

(Edwards, 2006). Demetriou (2001) argued that the ever-changing nature of how

masculinity is performed and expressed was down to the appropriation of other

behaviours which are seen to be useful for the continual dominance and domination

over women and gender minorities (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Although,

according to Connell (1995), masculinity is considered to ‘proceed from men’s

bodies’ and for that reason it is closely related to ones’ health providing ‘the focal

point of self-construction as well as health construction’ (Saltonstall, 1993, p. 12).

It is worthwhile beginning within the parameters of current diet trends in order to

present the phenomenon at hand within its current social sphere. The sharp increase

in the number of people advocating and following a Paleolithic diet (commonly

known as the ‘Paleo’ diet) has brought about a situation in which the level of

sociological research is lacking (Kuhn, 2013). The diet, which is linked to the crossfit

movement (Saxena, 2010), consists primarily of fresh meats, fruits, vegetables,

seeds and nuts. The justification for the following of such a diet is that human

genetics have remained relatively static since the time that our human predecessors

hunted and explored looking for the food necessary for survival (Kuhn, 2013).

Cordain (2011) argued that there is in-fact a conflict between the historical biology

and the culture within contemporary society. With obesity related diseases becoming

widespread (Kuhn, 2013) it is imperative that we assess not only the biological

implications of such a diet but perhaps more relevantly to this study; a sociological

examination of food pathways which encourage an increase in meat consumption

and the reasoning for the increase within a gym-environment.

A study conducted by Rothgerber (2012) found that men utilised much more direct

tactics when seeking to justify their own meat consumption, where as women were

much more likely to use evasive answering as well as indirect justifications or even

complete avoidance of answering all together (examples of these would be; men

may seek to justify the consumption of meat based upon some form of hierarchical

reasoning, such as humans eating animals is the natural order and women may seek

to dissociate themselves from eating much meat or from eating meat all together).

This research is said to be the first piece of empirical evidence which supports

Adams’s (1990) theory surrounding the ‘Sexual Politics of Meat’ which initially made

the link between feminism and ethical vegetarianism/veganism. These results

indicate to simply have the discussion regarding the ethical/environmental/nutritional

benefits of a vegetarian or vegan diet may actually ignore one of the main reasons

‘why men eat meat: It makes them feel like real men’ (Rothgerber, 2012, p.1). It has

been indicated that women articulate increased aversion and more negative outlooks

towards eating meat than men do (Kubberød et al, 2002). Conversely, men do not

believe a meal to be a real meal unless it includes meat (Sobal, 2005).

The relationship between meat and masculinity has been made throughout history,

particularly at times when conventional forms of masculinity have appeared under

threat (Rothgerber, 2012). Kimmel (1996) noted that an important tool of masculinity

for resisting the apparent ‘feminising of society’ in early 1900’s was that of increasing

meat consumption. Men’s Health - a health, fitness and lifestyle magazine for men -

which has a worldwide circulation of in excess of 3 million (Rothgerber, 2012) has

been shown to propagate the concept that ‘real men eat meat’ (Rothgerber, 2012,

p.2). A study conducted by Stibbe (2004), analysed six different copies of the

magazine and found that meat was repeatedly coupled with images of dominant

masculinity; the effect of which is to unambiguously associate the practice of meat

consumption with the goal of attaining the ‘perfect male body’ due to its apparent

impact on muscle size and strength.

According to Connell & Messerschmidt (2005) the dominant form of masculinity,

within any context, is that of ‘Hegemonic Masculinity’ which in-turn generates two

distinct types of hegemony; internal & external (Demetriou, 2001). Internal

hegemony being the hierarchy of power that exists within the gender – in this case,

men - and external hegemony is the appropriation of other behaviours which are

deemed more useful in order to strengthen ‘the institutionalisation of men’s

dominance over women and gender minorities’ (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005,

p.844) in an attempt to reinforce the current societal gender order. The fluidity of the

former and its ever changing nature and continual creation of hierarchies which

favour masculine behaviours and disadvantage feminine ones (Foucalt, 1979;

Hasbrook & Harris, 2000) allows the latter to exist and flourish as the most dominant

form of masculinity (Demetriou, 2001). While the manner in which masculinity is

performed may change, the rationalisation behind male power and dominance

(Brittan, 1989) does not. As such, the behaviours of hegemonic masculinity will

remain an ‘expression of the privilege men collectively have over women’ (Connell

1996, p.209). As Stibbe (2004) stated the biological does not determine the social,

however that does not prevent men ‘artificially attaching all manner of power and

privilege to biological differences’ (Klein 1993, p. 5) to gain power over women and

gender minorities. An example of this would be the supposed greater sporting ability

of men – related to biology – which is accorded socially constructed meaning and

importance and thus becomes emblematic of the superiority men have over women

and gender minorities (Connell, 1995).

The relationship between domination, masculinity and bodybuilding was discussed

by Klein (1993) who characterised almost inherent fascistic attributes, stating: ‘The

fetishism for spectacle, worship of power, grandiose fantasies, preoccupation with

form and youthful vitality, dominance and submission in social relations are all

essential characteristics shared by bodybuilding and fascism’ (p. 254). This is not to

say that masculine behaviours are inherently fascistic – what it does seek to display

is the close relationship to those traits which are seen as typically, and traditionally,

masculine as being inextricably linked to domination and subsequent oppression.

Prior to the research the belief was that there may well be a relationship between the

age at which young men begin partaking in gym activity with the aim of improving

muscle size and definition and the culmination of the natural process of puberty. This

would be in-keeping with the research of Linn & Petersen (1986) and latterly,

Galambos et al (1990) which indicated that a process of ‘gender intensification’

usually occurs around this time. This could imply that the subjects concerned may

feel masculinised by the process of growing and naturally ‘bulking-out’ but are put in

a position where they feel de-masculinised by that process ending and thus having

to find some way of continuing said process. Simultaneously, the differing

implications and meanings behind the process of ‘gender intensification’ (Linn &

Petersen, 1986; Galambos et al, 1990) for different demographics within society,

have been taken into consideration. Messner & Sabo (1994) alluded to the different

meanings of athletic participation as well as an athletic physique, within young men,

for differing demographics within society based on pre-existing institutionalised,

systematic oppressions.

For the purposes of this research the author is utilising the definition of bodybuilding

as defined by Klein (1986) who states that although only a tiny fraction of the

participants will ever develop to the levels required to participate within the discipline

at a competitive level; almost all of them have an expectation that they will see some

form of transformation. This is what Klein (1986) refers to as being ‘bodybuilders,

body-shapers and/or body designers’ and for this reason it may refer to different

activities than some may define as ‘bodybuilding’ traditionally (p. 115). It is highly

pertinent to understand the nuances involved in bodybuilding as a subculture and the

interactions that occur within that space (Klein, 1993). The body of a young man

could be seen as an expression of that persons own self-identity (Shilling, 1993) and

thus the potential to build, shape or design (Klein, 1986) that body is in an attempt to

show hard work and dedication to a process (Shilling, 1993; Wiegers, 2003) which is

uniquely relevant when considering previous research into the ‘Crisis of Masculinity’

(Payne, 1985).

Seeking to evaluate and analyse the decisions of the demographic concerned to

utilise the traditional high-protein, animal-based diet whilst understanding the acute

issues which a masculinised society brings to the socialisation process of young men

is of utmost importance to this research. From this, the author seeks to spark a

discussion, in much wider context, about why diets and behaviours are chosen and

the reasoning behind this process. It is the authors’ belief that it is simply not a

coincidence that a demographic, who as a primary product or a by-product of their

exercise, adhere to both the heavily masculinised bodily ideals as well as the

consumption of a masculinised diet (Adams, 1990; Scott, 2014).

One of the most common schools of thought surrounding the societal impacts and

importance of a diet comprised of animal products is that of the ‘absent referent’

(Adams, 1990, p. 66) which refers to the relationship people have with the meat

which they consume. Adams argues that there are 3 distinct ways in which the living

animal becomes absent when it is being consumed. The first is the ‘literal absence’;

put simply, it is dead. The next is ‘definitional absence’; when we use language to

differentiate between the living animal and the food (for example; ‘beef’ rather than

‘cow’, ‘veal’ rather than ‘baby cow’ or ‘calf’). And the third is metaphorical; this refers

to the elevation of animals, their bodies, their lives as well as their deaths to

becoming descriptive terms for people’s experiences. This is usually explained using

the example of a person saying that they ‘felt like a piece of meat’ when being

assaulted. The meaning of the absent referent in this case is defined purely and

simply by its reference to something or someone else (Adams, 1990). According to

Adams’s (1990) critique; the connections between meat consumption and

masculinity (and its’ many forms) are not unintentional: believing that, in-fact, meat is

actually a representation of societal patriarchy because of its continual and historical

association with ‘manhood, power, and virility’ (Ruby & Heine, 2011, p.448). In this

example women and meat are simultaneously acting as ‘absent referents.’ Just as

with the ‘definitional absence’ of the dead animals from the discourse surrounding

meat, Adams (1990) argues, that in descriptions of violence against women, the

women are often made the ‘absent referent.’

In the context of bodybuilding; masculinity, and its many facets, has been alluded to

and discussed by many, with Klein (1993) viewing bodybuilders as mentally ill whilst

displaying behaviours conducive to neurotic insecurity. Alternatively, other scholars

have described bodybuilding as utilisation of the body as a project which can be

shaped and altered based on different desires, wants and needs (Shilling, 1993).

Klein (1993) argued against this stating that bodybuilders’ participation, daily routines

and their own social outlook are often reflective of an artificial mindset of self-

autonomy and enhancement of one’s self-identity; however the systemic reality is a

participation marred in dependence and informal hierarchies. These structural and

internal hierarchies are reflective of wider societies own hegemonic masculinity

although there are important distinctions to be made.

Bodybuilding, masculinity and sport do not exist within a vacuum and thus it is

affected by the, so-called, outside world (Cushion et al, 2003) meaning that the

participants’ experiences, both within the discipline and outside of it, will influence

their personal philosophy (Bourdieu, 1977; Ritzer, 1996). According to Bryson

(1987); sport is a crucial arena in which ‘hegemonic masculinity’ is constructed and

reconstructed; as such, it is an important area of study which must be de-constructed

and analysed.

Given previous research linking meat consumption with masculinity (Adams, 1990;

Rothgerber, 2012) as well as investigations into the relationship between muscularity

and masculinity (Stibbe, 2004) – it is believed that research tying these three areas

together is imperative to understanding another area of ‘hegemonic masculinity’

within society.

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to investigate and better understand a social

phenomena (Patton, 2002); namely that of the potential relationship between

masculine gender identities, muscle-aesthetics and the diet which is consumed by

the demographic involved – in this case a high-protein, animal based diet. The

research was conducted using a qualitative approach in order to extract data from

the participants’ experiences and opinions (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2011). Prior to

the study commencing ethical approval was given by the school’s ethical committee

upon completion of a full ethics proposal. Before commencement of the research;

the lead investigator obtained consent directly from the participant through the

completion of a consent form. This was obtained after the participant had ample time

(period of two weeks) to consider their participation in the study after reading the

participant information sheet. All participants were aware of their ability to withdraw

from the study at any time, in-keeping with ethical practice.

Participants

In order to recruit participants the researcher approached local gyms seeking to

leave notes on any notice board within the gym as well as investigating whether it

would be possible to send an email out on any mailing list to members –

unfortunately, the latter was not feasible. The notices sought to explain the study, as

well as clearly lay out the inclusion criteria and what would be required of

participants should they wish to be involved. It also contained contact details for the

lead investigator in order to allow anyone wishing to be involved to make contact. As

well as this the researcher identified some potential participants through snowball

sampling (Noy, 2008). Snowball sampling can be described as a method of

gathering participants for research projects via the identification of a preliminary

participant who then has the ability to provide the names of other potential subjects

(Lewis-Beck, Bryman & Liao, 2004). The participants were recruited and chosen on

a volunteer basis.

Before selection all participants had to meet the inclusion criteria for the study, in

order to ensure that the study is relevant and accurate to the aims and objectives set

out. The inclusion criterion for participation in the study was as follows;

Male

Aged between 18-25

Amateur Bodybuilder and/or Amateur (or informal) coach of amateur

bodybuilder

Procedure

The researcher explored this through three different semi-structured focus groups.

The questions and topics used within the focus group were also approved by the

school ethical committee before being piloted on a test group. This test allowed the

researcher to make any small changes that they felt appropriate to ensure that the

focus group discussion was as worthwhile as possible as well as ensuring that the

discussion flowed properly. The aim was for each of these focus groups to contain

between six and ten people (Morgan, 1998) but unfortunately due to cancellations by

participants these focus groups ranged in size from two to six people. Focus groups

were deemed the most appropriate method of data collection due to their successful

utilisation in previous studies investigating issues that are deemed or perceived to be

sensitive by the group (Renzetti & Lee, 1993). Previous studies (Grogan & Richards,

2002) have indicated that men felt that their own ‘body image’ was often a difficult

discussion to have as with the research of Grogan & Richards (2002), it was felt that

this method of discussion was the most accessible and appropriate. Body image –

often with discussion of bodily insecurities – can be a sensitive topic for many men.

This could be due to them being particularly inexperienced in discussing how they

feel about their looks (Grogan, 1999).

The use of focus groups was also deemed appropriate as it was felt the most non-

hierarchical method of data collection (Wilkinson, 1999). Although the researcher

accepts that the nature of focus groups does not nullify the power dynamic between

the participants and the researcher, it was decided that this would be the best

method in attempting to transfer the balance of power (Wilkinson, 1999) away from

the questioner to the questioned (Grogan & Richards, 2002).

Focus groups are often utilised in order to provide the opportunities for a mutual

exchange of views between participants, this means that they are often less open to

the researcher’s bias (Morgan 1988), something which is of particular importance in

this study due to the researchers own views and strict following of a vegan diet –

which some of the participants were aware of prior to the study due to pre-existing

relationships with many of the participants. It has also been indicated that focus

groups allow participants to dictate their own agenda and thus be more transparent

with their thoughts throughout the interview process (Kitzinger & Farquhar, 1999).

Participants were first engaged in an informal discussion; this was in an attempt to

make them feel comfortable and relaxed. Once the interviewer believed they were at

ease the recording device was switched on and the interview began (Grogan &

Richards, 2002). The focus groups were recorded using a voice recorder with a

directional microphone. These recordings were then transcribed before the data

gained were then put through a process of thematic decomposition (Stenner, 1993)

by the researcher and peers to ensure accurate interpretation (Patton, 2002) of the

data collected, whilst at all times ensuring participant confidentiality and anonymity.

All confidential information was stored on a security encrypted USB pen drive, and to

ensure anonymity all participants were given a unique identification number which

corresponded with the focus group they participated in (i.e.: Participants in Focus

group 1 – A1, B1, C1 etc; Participants in Focus group 2 – A2, B2, C2 etc &

Participants in Focus Group 3 – A3, B3, C3 etc).

The decision to use this method of gathering research data is down to the ability to

prompt debate and ideas within the group thus opening up new areas for discussion

as well as seek clarification on certain statements that may be of high relevance

and/or importance to the research, this was possible through the use of probing for

elaboration and clarification and by using encouraging behavioural and silent probes

(Gorden, 1969). This research began using an etic-based approach (Pike, 1954)

which in- turn allowed emic themes (Pike, 1954) to arise throughout the project. An

etic approach uses theories, concepts and pre-existing research from outside of the

setting being studied as its main method of analysis. Lett (1990) describes it, ‘Etic

constructs are accounts, descriptions, and analyses expressed in terms of the

conceptual schemes and categories regarded as meaningful and appropriate by the

community of scientific observers’ (p. 130). An emic approach begins by using the

data gained via research as its starting point, using the opinions and quotes of the

participants of the research. Lett (1990) explains it as ‘Emic constructs are accounts,

descriptions, and analyses expressed in terms of the conceptual schemes and

categories regarded as meaningful and appropriate by the native members of the

culture whose beliefs and behaviours are being studied’ (p. 130).

Once submitted to the process of thematic decomposition (Stenner, 1993) and

cross-coding, the data gained were then analysed using an interpretivist approach

(Patton, 2002). Particularly close attention was paid to areas of apparent crossover

between participants’ discussion points as well as areas of previous research

(Grogan & Richards, 2002). These will be addressed here under theme headings,

with participants identified only by the codes assigned to them during the interview

process to preserve anonymity.

Results and Discussion

Themes

Attention was given to similarities in discourses presented by the participants from

throughout the interview process. These similarities were set under the theme

headings laid out above. Throughout participants discussed their own experiences of

bodybuilding, in which attaining a muscular physique was a primary goal, with their

increased consumption of meat products a considered aspect of that process.

Participants (as well as those external to the investigation) that have a body type and

shape that does not conform to the ideals set out by the group and wider society

were de-masculinised and therefore discriminated against on the basis of being

considered non-men. With those who do fulfil the societal expectations being

perceived as exemplary examples of man and therefore elevated to the superior

within a social-hierarchy. As well as the production of hierarchies based on the

adherence to societal ideals of the body; they were also constructed by the creation

of a binarised and often value based dichotomy of men’s versus women’s food

pathways.

‘Pull burds and get them pumped’

One common thread throughout the data is that of references to women. Opinions of

how women should look and analysis of the body ideals that they should adhere to

were both heavily referenced throughout. A common justification for attending the

gym was that of looking to be more attractive to a potential romantic and/ or sexual

Reference made to women (and

gender minorities)

Absent Referent (Adams, 1990)

Inversion of the absent referent

Creation of informal

hierarchies

partner. With sex-drive acting as the most authoritative pressure within their life

(Dworkin & Wachs, 2000), it seems clear that the participants’ may strive to achieve

their bodily ideals in an attempt to realise those sexual desires (Gilder, 1986):

C1 – Ye, I go and I work-out then I look in the mirror and I think that I have done well

to get this big and shown that I can do it. And that fuck me – I am definitely going to

be getting some pussy out of this graft

Participants also attributed their perceived successes in their sexual relationships to

their new-found muscular physique:

C1 – well, look I had no chance with this burd two years ago but now I’ve made

gains then pumped her last week!

B1 – aye, because more people will find you attractive

E1 – like before I started going to the gym my girlfriend was hardly a six out of ten

and now she is easily a ten!

With some stating that it was one of their goals in looking to achieve a muscular or

athletic physique:

A1 – pull burds and get them pumped

This would indicate that there has been an acceptance of the concept that

muscularity is a mainstay of male physical attractiveness and essential aspect of the

traditional notion of what it means to be masculine (Mansfield & McGinn 1993; Bordo

1993). The research surrounding the muscular physique and how that intertwines

with men’s interactions (be that sexual or not) with women would indicate the

muscular physique brings with it an assumed access to multiple women’s bodies

(Dworkin & Wachs, 2000).

Another pertinent area of discussion is that of men’s thoughts on women who seek

to achieve similar goals to them – in so far as they seek to alter their body shape

closer to their own ideals (be they societal or personal). The focus groups

surrounding this area took on a similar narrative to the previous section with a highly

sexualised discussion in which participants indicated their preferences in women’s

bodies and how they, as women, should achieve these preferences:

A1 – I would like it if they done them squats and got that ass

This premise was repeated numerous times, and the participants expressed

thoughts that extended to both what women should and should not do with their

bodies, based upon how physically attractive they find certain attributes. This would

indicate an assumed level of not only access as previously mentioned but also

power as well as control over the bodies of women (Messner, 1988):

D1 – I don’t like, I don’t like burds doing bodybuilding ’cause it makes them look shit

E1 – aye, if they had the ass and legs and stuff then aye – but it’s when they start

bodybuilding up top they start to fuck it

A1 – I don’t like it when they have big shoulders and biceps – triceps on burds look

honkin’

One important aspect of this discussion is that of the different societal expectations

and idealisms that are placed on women in comparison to those which are placed on

men. With men having the expectation placed on them that they will conform to the

culture that they exist within pre-existing notions of what they should be – in this

case, a muscular, dominating and athletic man (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005;

Dworkin & Wachs, 2000). Conversely, women are expected to accept and adhere to

the ‘disciplinary practices’ that produce and seek to privilege their bodies as

subordinate to that of masculine men (Foucalt, 1979; Hasbrook & Harris, 2000). This

could in-turn lend itself to a situation in which men seek to control the levels at which

women involve themselves in the gym environment (be that in bodybuilding or

general attendance in order to keep fit), even down to challenging the language and

definitions which they would use to describe their own involvement in the area:

B2 – That is what masculinity is… I mean as far as I am aware…men who would be

classed as bodybuilders but there are female athletes out there but they are more

categorised as fitness models rather than bodybuilders. And you see these girls and

they are in great condition but they are fitness models rather than bodybuilders…

A2 – naw, I would definitely say bodybuilding, in my opinion, is a masculine sport but

I think even like brands like Nike and Adidas they have kinda came into it and tried to

get women into the gym or even to look sexy or I think Nike had a campaign called

‘Go Squat in the gym’ or was it ‘I squat’ and then it was pictures of women’s bums

and stuff like that so I think that for women it is more cosmetic and maybe more they

just want to be a fitness model – like ‘I want to be a model’ whereas wae’ men it is

more I want to be the ultimate man, I want to be strong, like Arnold Schwarznegger,

like Mr Universe kinda’ thing.

This dichotomy of men’s bodybuilding and women’s fitness activities seeks to

perpetuate the line that women’s bodies are firstly, the property of men to control and

do with what they wish and secondly, that women’s bodies are supposed to be

physically subordinate and inferior to that of men (Foucalt, 1979; Hasbrook & Harris,

2000). We may also wish to interrogate the use of the words ‘building’ verses

‘modelling’ when describing what is- at its most basic level- the same activity. The

former implies an active participant, productively creating something, the latter does

not reference the individual but the spectator; a ‘fitness model’ displays a body which

is reduced to its muscularity, tone definition etc. (i.e.; its component parts) whereas a

‘bodybuilder’ actively engages in ‘self-improvement’ which is driven by one’s own

self-image and identification rather than the image placed upon one by external

forces. Therefore the bodybuilder is a subject engaging actively whereas the ‘fitness

model’ is an object engaging passively. These observations are backed up by a

number of studies from different disciplines, arguably the most influential being Laura

Mulvey’s ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ (1975) in which she discusses the

male gaze and women’s objectified role in society; what she calls ‘women’s to-be-

looked-at-ness’ (p.89).

The narrative of men’s control over women’s engagement in gym activities is also

reflected in the participants’ statements on the diets of women:

A2 – I think it is more a stereotype that if you are a bodybuilder then you are really

masculine but if you see a fit looking female fitness model then you just assume that

she eats healthy and squats lots and takes supplements. But I’ve just thought about

it that you immediately assume that the lassies just eat lots of fruits and vegetables

and eats healthy and goes for runs and that but when you see muscley guys you

think he must lift heavy and eat lots of meats and that so it is like double standards.

B2 – aye – you just assume that all big guys always eat meat just because it is the

norm…; like the manliest looking men are the muscliest and chances are they eat

the most meat to get to that size!...

‘Real men eat meat!’

The division and hierarchising of diets and food pathways along the lines of gender

is something that has been continually perpetuated throughout history with the

oppositions of men’s versus women’s food translating into the opposition of meat

versus vegetables, and meat versus tofu (Rogers, 2008). Meat is predominately

associated with masculinity across the world (Adams, 1990; Rifkin, 1993; Sobal,

2005); this is a premise seemingly supported by some of the participants:

B3 - …men are more meat eaters and than burds and that so…,

A3 – well all the vegetarians I know are either poofs or lassies so ye…

None more explicitly so than:

B2 –I love real food – not tofu pish!

The value systems by which hierarchies of food as formed are largely judged by

whether the food in question is made up of the flesh of another- once living- being.

As such, for a meal to be considered real it must contain or consist of meat (Sobal,

2005). Given some of the participants are consuming five or six square meals a day

– all of which contain meat – amounts to a substantial volume of meat.

An interesting development of the research was not necessarily that of the sheer

volume of meat that the participants consumed as a conscious aspect of their

bodybuilding activities but rather the lack of consideration given to other aspects of

their diet. When asked how they would describe their diet the answers varied but

they were not particularly able or willing to discuss in any great detail a diet plan or

anything similar:

B2 – meaty,

C2 – balanced but probably too meaty.

It seems that there may be somewhat of a ‘go-to’ aspect surrounding meat

consumption within amateur bodybuilding rather than a concise and clear argument

about it – however, as alluded to previously there is need for a discussion

surrounding the nutritional benefits of a high-protein, animal based diet out-with this

debate surrounding its sociological grounding as well as the impact that this diet may

have. The ‘go-to’ nature of meat as a method of protein consumption is interesting

and it would be worthwhile to further investigate the relationship between the

hierarchical nature of the gym environment and where the participants get

information about diet as well as who they trust with such guidance. Further research

would be needed but potentially, the informal nature of coaching within these

environments has led to an exaggeration of the importance of meat as protein within

a bodybuilder’s diet, which could be seen as an oversimplification.

‘Anything with a heartbeat’

Adams’ theory of the absent referent becomes pertinent at this stage in the research

(Adams, 1990, p. 66). However, as the author will set out, the research conducted

seems to refer to a theory which – in parts – is contrary to aspects of Adams’

groundbreaking work. Throughout the focus groups, when discussing the

participants’ diets and food habits we did see the common absent referent in action,

insofar as they describe what they are consuming as food rather than as a dead

animal.

A1 – I eat quite a lot of beef, but I really like like leaner meats so like venison and

that as well…

E1 – I like meat. Meat is tasty, I enjoy eating it and it’s easy if you go out to eat and

it’s not expensive, well it is like the same price but it is easier

At this stage we should remember the context and environment in which the

participants exist; one of continual adaptation in the name of the domination and

oppression (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) of minorities – and understand this

important distinguishing behaviour as a possible caveat to Adams’ theory.

In this analysis, the research would suggest that in-fact the ‘absent referent’ has

been flipped linguistically and conceptually for the participants. This has been written

about previously by Montford (2013) who described the inversion of the absent

referent as a characteristic of heterosexual masculinity within advertisements in the

meat industry.

B1 – anything with a face!

B2 – definitely, red meats! And most things that have a heartbeat to be honest.

B2 - I suppose you get protein from a lot of stuff but I still prefer mine to have had a

smile at one point.

There is no attempt to linguistically or metaphorically separate the food on their

plates from the being it once was. In fact, the domination of consuming the body of a

formerly living being is celebrated. Connell and Messerchmidt (2005) discussed

men’s systemic and societal domination of women and gender minorities as a means

to continuing the current societal gender order. The interactions above link the act of

dominating the bodies of non-human animals and the act of dominating the bodies of

gender oppressed people. It is plausible to say that the justification of domination of

both groups run along the same line of ‘the natural order of things’; it is natural to eat

meat; men by virtue of their gender, are naturally dominant. The pursuit of

hegemonic masculinity is to continue the domination of men over all other living

beings and not just women and gender minorities; participants do not attempt to

dissociate the food they are consuming from the living animal but they actively make

that hierarchised relationship known, and they express their knowledge of that but

also their happiness and willingness to engage in the process of consuming the flesh

of a non-human animal.

As discussed previously, the justifications for meat consumption given by men vary

significantly from those given by women (Rothgerber, 2012) but one significant

aspect of this research is that of the obvious dismissal of women’s diets as

somewhat lesser and thus the hierarchy between men and women is not only

perpetuated but as well as this is it could be seen as being exacerbated along the

lines of diet (Rogers, 2008).

‘Trust him… he’s big’

Another area of relevance when seeking to analyse the data is that of informal

hierarchies (some of which are incorrectly seen as formal relationships by classifying

some people’s knowledge more worthwhile than others based on a certain criteria).

However, the manner in which these relationships and dynamics are formed is of

particular importance in reference to this project.

Although not an initial area of study, throughout research it became apparent that

there seemed to be a potential disparity in knowledge between the athletes (or

performers) and the informal coaches, who guide them through their ‘building’

process. It is therefore necessary to interrogate the informal structures which exist

and by what criteria participants in the sport are judged knowledgeable and

successful enough to become the coach, albeit informally. According to Schempp

(2000), the level of skill that a coach will achieve is dependent on the levels of

experiential knowledge gathered through the tasks they complete within the field

concerned, this would appear to be supported by the input from the participants.

When asked about why they would approach an unqualified member of the gym

rather than a personal trainer;

A1 – well if they are older and they are bigger or stronger than you then you would

think they know what they are doing.

B2 - …someone who knows it! I would go to the guy who is a better physique or is

bigger than me because you can see that he has that experience…

B1 –…talking to the biggest guy in the gym because he knows through experience

and you can trust him because he is big!

This indicates that the hierarchies created within the environment of bodybuilding are

created along the lines of the time spent participating, and thus the level of

experience, which is in-keeping with the research of Schempp (1989). Perhaps more

importantly the status or recognition the athletes’ are accorded is granted on the

basis of how close the athlete is perceived to be to the ‘ideal body’ (i.e.; muscle size

and definition) and how well they reflect the goals and internal self image of those

seeking information. Thus it could be said that any power dynamic or hierarchy

created in the space is created in tandem with the physical superiority of another and

becomes the ‘symbolic proof of superiority’ (Connell, 1995, p.54). The creation of

social hierarchies along the lines of physicality (or physical superiority) is a concept

not supported by all, with some holding the belief that even with ‘comparable bodies’

there are some who will be unable to reach ‘comparable power’ (Klein, 1993) both

physically; but more importantly, socially. This author would take Klein’s argument a

step further and note that barriers which prevent attainment of the ‘comparable

power’ in many cases would mirror pre-existing societal divisions and hierarchies

(Messner & Sabo, 1994), such as homophobia and sexism;

A3 – well all the vegetarians I know are either poofs or lassies so…

This would indicate a relationship of some kind between how the participants

perceive some diets to be relevant to certain members of society – in this case

women and lgbt* identified people, this is particularly pertinent in light of the

conclusions made by Connell and Messerschmidt (2005). The discrimination within

this space continues beyond the standard practices within sections of society;

extending towards discrimination and bullying based on muscle size and definition.

The perception of ‘real men’ being muscular is reinforced and defended;

C1 - *interrupts* skinny bastard!

E1 – … you’re bigger than the puney wee fuck

A2 - …- skinny fuck!...

One of the limitations of this research, as I will go on to outline, is the context of the

interviews, and responses such as those above can be understood as an attempt at

being humorous within a group of similarly minded young men, and the machismo

and ‘lad banter’ that such a context can foster. There was one example of continual

and consistent bullying of one participant based upon his muscularity;

D1 – for the first year at the gym I got called ‘coco pop’ by a bald man….

D1– so, he asked me if all I ate was coco pops and started trying to tell me what to

eat and for ages he kept calling me coco pop but he was ugly and bald and small so

it was sound.

B1– basically, he was just trying to put him down and make it feel shit about his size

but…

D1– I was only fucking 16 for fucks sake – wee prick!

B1– aye, but it’s like the pecking order

Although the bullying and singling-out of the participant is important and relevant, a

significant aspect of these interactions is the reference to his diet and how this

justifies his mistreatment. In this case the member of the gym – the ‘bald man’ –

picked on the participant thus assuming the position of the superior within the

relationship and used his diet as a means to justify that process. Of particular

importance is the fact that he indicated that the participant should consume meat as

a method of increasing in size;

D1– and then he kept saying; ‘you need to eat fish and chicken, but your just eating

coco-pops mate!’ but after a couple of years I lifted more than him and he shut up!

It would seem from this interaction that the only way to overcome and remove

oneself from a position of the inferior within a gym, bodybuilding environment is to ‘lift

more than’ the dominant within that relationship.

‘I would tell them to get to fuck’

Not only are hierarchies formed based on muscularity of participants, but also on the

diets and food pathways which participants chose to follow. Opinions regarding the

following of plant based diets often extend to prejudice; arguably because of the

opposition of men’s versus women’s food (Rogers, 2008). When asked what they

would say to a vegan or vegetarian bodybuilder if they came across them, they

replied;

D1 – I would tell them to get to fuck

D1 – I would pull their pants down and laugh at their wee fannies

D1 – as long as they are not gay too

Participants in the research refuse outright to engage in the discussion on

bodybuilders who adopt alternative diets. In order to shut down this discussion the

participants employed the gendering of plant based diets. They have gendered the

space they occupy, and one of the criteria for fitting into that gender (and therefore

space) is the consumption of meat; in doing so the space is not accessible to those

who do not consume meat.

D1 – I would pull their pants down and laugh at their wee fannies

The participant makes the relationship between the gender of the person and their

following of a plant-based diet, in-keeping with the idea that real men eat meat! It is

also important to note that the most effective form of insult for the participants to use

is to re-gender someone as woman; which further strengthens the arguments

regarding men’s domination and women’s subordinate position. Participants use the

process of othering (Spivak, 1985) in order to assert their dominance, not only over

women and gender minorities, but also over men who engage in bodybuilding but

who do not follow the same food pathways as them. This narrative is propagated

beyond the boundaries of their own bodies as they seek to help and guide others

through the bodybuilding process. The very idea that to be as muscular and

therefore be as masculine as is possible (McCreary et al, 2005); you must consume

meat permeates beyond their own bodybuilding process, as they seek to impart their

knowledge of how to be a man onto other individuals. So when they say;

B2 – … but if a guy who was struggling to bulk in the gym and then they said they

were veggie then I would tell them to start eating meat again because they won’t be

able to bulk without it – and they have proved that! Because you need to incorporate

the diet into the training programme or it is useless and to me; meat is important to

that.

What they really mean is;

…you need meat because you need to be a man!

Conclusion, limitations and future research

The gap in the research tying these important areas of research together was fairly

self-evident, with a large volume of research investigating masculinity, both within

sport but also its effects in a wider context as well as swathes of investigations into

the nutritional and physiological benefits of certain diets. Throughout this study the

author focussed primarily on the relationship between the masculine gender

identities performed by the athletes and coaches and how they interact with meat

consumption as an extension of those gender identities, whilst understanding the

necessity of further discussion around the nutritional value of certain diets.

The findings of the research support Adam’s work on the Sexual Politics of Meat and

the absent referent but also indicate a further progression and masculinised

development, through the appropriation of new, deeper and stronger forms of

oppression based upon subordination and inferiority – in this case it is directed

towards non-human animals. This occurs whilst ensuring the continuation of the

dominance that men have over women and other gender minorities. The

appropriation is fulfilled through the inversion of the absent referent into the present

referent in an attempt to express their happiness and willingness to engage in

consumption of non-human animals.

With the researcher themselves following a strict vegan diet as well as having some

pre-existing relationships with the participants of the study – this may well have

restricted their willingness to divulge some of their thoughts and opinions with

regards to their diet. This aspect was referenced by one participant during focus

group three but the researcher believes it may well have influenced other data

collection processes. Participant recruitment proved to be a difficult task with many

people expressing an interest in engaging in the research withdrawing prior to taking

part in the focus groups, whilst this indicates that their right to withdraw at any stage

was well communicated prior to the study it also increased workload and difficulty in

completing the study. Nonetheless, the manner in which one group withdrew was of

particular relevance to this study and any future studies of similar nature. With one

group of six individuals having arranged a time and venue to participate in the focus

group, one member then emailed the researcher stating that he was unable to make

it. This unfortunate withdrawal was then quickly followed by all other participants,

within this close-knit group of friends withdrawing also. The work of Klein (1993) is of

relevance in this respect, with him writing that the social hierarchies within the gym

environment dictate what the participants are willing and able to dedicate time and

effort to and if engaging in a process will not gain them social capital; then they

simply may not engage in it. In respect to the study at hand, once the first person

had withdrawn – who could be seen as the head of the hierarchy – the others

decided that engaging in the process would not achieve anything for them and

therefore withdrew.

With respects to further research, the author would support additional investigations

into the relationship between men and the construction of informal hierarchies within

the bodybuilding environment as well as acknowledging the potential areas of study

includes more advanced analysis of this topic looking primarily at the relationship

between the construction of masculine gender identities and the consumption of non-

human animal products (or meat). Ideally within these research projects would be

the opportunity to engage in a more longitudinal study with the prospect of follow-up

interviews allowing more chance to investigate the subject in a more in-depth

manner.

As previously stated the lack of research tying muscularity, meat consumption and

masculinity together was the main justification for the completion of this research.

The inversion of the ‘absent referent’ (Adams, 1990) as an appropriated behaviour

(Demetriou, 2001) in an attempt to continue the current societal gender order

(Connell & Messerchmidt, 2005) was the most interesting development. When

considered alongside research on the existence of hierarchical relationships within

the bodybuilding environment, this research indicates a link between the societal

superiority that men collectively have over women and gender minorities as well

delves into how the process and structure of hegemonic masculinity extends to every

section of society – showing that not content with oppressing all other human

animals; men, collectively, strive to broaden that domination to all other living beings

– including animals.

References

Adams, C. (1990) The sexual politics of meat: A feminist vegetarian critical theory.

New York, NY: Continuum.

Bordo, S. (1993) Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body.

California, University of California Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a theory of practice. London: Cambridge University

Press.

Brittan, A. (1989) Masculinity and Power. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Bryman, A. (1988) Quantity and quality in social research. London: Unwin Hyman

Bryson, L. (1987) Sport and the Maintenance of Masculine Hegemony. Women's

Studies International Forum, Vol. 10, no.4. Pp. 349–60. Elsevier: Edinburgh.

Connell, R. (1995) Masculinities. London: Polity.

Connell, R. W. (1996) Teaching the boys: new research on masculinity, and gender

strategies for schools. Teachers College Record, vol. 98 no. 2, pp. 206-35. New

York, NY: Columbia University.

Connell, R.W & Messerchmidt, J.W. (2005) Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the

concept. Gender and Society, Vol.19, No.6, pp. 829-59. Thousand Oaks, California:

Sage.

Connell, R.W. (2005) Masculinities, 2. London: Polity.

Cordain, L. (2011) The Paleo Diet. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Cushion, C.J., Armour, K.M., & Jones, R.L. (2003) Coach education and continuing

professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest. vol. 55. Pp.

215-30.

Demetriou, D. Z. (2001) Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique.

Theory and Society, Vol. 3, pp. 337-61. University of California, CA: Springer.

Dworkin, S.L. & Wachs, F.L. (2000) The Morality/Manhood Paradox: Masculinity,

Sport, and the Media. In McKay, J., Messner, M.A. & Sabo, D. (Eds.) Masculinities,

Gender Relations, and Sport (pp. 47-66). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Dyer, R. (1985) Male sexuality in the media, in A.Metcalf and M.Humphries (eds)

The Sexuality of Men, London: Pluto.

Edwards, T. (2006) Cultures of Masculinity. New York: Routledge.

Foucalt, M. (1979) Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.

Galambos, N. L., Almeida, D. M., & Petersen, A. G. (1990). Masculinity, femininity,

and sex role attitudes in early adolescence: Exploring gender intensification. Child

Development, 61. Pp. 1905-14. The Society for Research in Child Development.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Gilder, G. (1986) Men and Marriage. Gretna: Pelican.

Gorden, R. L. (1969) Interviewing: Strategy, Techniques and Tactics. Belmont, CA:

Dorsey Press.

Grogan, S., & Richards, H. (2002) Body image: Focus groups with boys and men.

Men and Masculinities, 4. Pp. 219–33. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Grogan,S. (1999) Body Image: Understanding body dissatisfaction in men, women

and children. London: Routledge.

Hasbrook, C.A. & Harris, O. (2000) Wrestling with Gender: Physicality and

Masculinities Among Inner-City First and Second Graders. In McKay, J., Messner,

M.A. & Sabo, D. (Eds.) Masculinities, Gender Relations, and Sport (pp. 13-30).

Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Hennink, M., Hutter, I. & Bailey, A. (2011) Qualitative research methods. Thousand

Oaks, California: Sage.

Kimmel, M. (1996) Manhood in America. A cultural history. New York, NY: Simon &

Schuster.

Kitzinger, J., & Farquhar, C. (1999) The analytical potential of ‘sensitive moments’ in

focus group discussions. In Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and

practice, edited by R. Barbour and J. Kitzinger, pp. 156-73. London: Sage.

Klein, A. (1993) Little big men: Bodybuilding subculture and gender construction.

New York: State University of New York Press.

Klein, A. (1986) Pumping Irony: Crisis and Contradiction in Bodybuilding. Sociology

of Sport Journal, 3, pp. 112-33. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.

Kubberød, E., Ueland, O., Rodbotten, M., Westad, F., & Risvik, E. (2002) Gender

specific preferences and attitudes towards meat. Food Quality Preference, 13, pp.

285–94. Elsevier: Edinburgh.

Kubberød, E., Ueland, O., Tronstad, A., & Risvik, E. (2002) Attitudes toward meat

and meat-eating among adolescents in Norway: A qualitative study. Appetite, 38, pp.

53–62. Elsevier: Edinburgh.

Kuhn, S. (2013) The Culture of Crossfit: A Lifestyle Prescription for Optimal Health

and Fitness. Senior Theses – Anthropology. Paper 1. Illinois: Illinois State University

Press.

Lett, J. (1990) Emics and etics: Notes on the epistemology of anthropology. In T.N.

Headland, K.L. Pike, & M. Harris (Eds.). Emics and etics: The insider/outsider

debate. Frontiers of anthropology. vol. 7. Newbury Park, California: Sage

Publications.

Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A. & Liao, T. F. (2004) The Sage Encyclopedia of Social

Science Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Linn, M. C., & Peterson, A. C. (1986) A meta-analysis of gender differences in spatial

ability: Implications for mathematics and science achievement. In J. S. Hyde & M. C.

Linn (Eds.), The Psychology of Gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 67-

101). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Mansfield, A., & McGinn, B. (1993) Pumping irony: The muscular and the feminine.

In Body matters, edited by S. Scott and D. Morgan, pp. 49-68. London: Falmer.

McCreary, D.R., Saucier, D.M. & Courtenay, W.H. (2005) The Drive for Muscularity

and Masculinity: Testing The Associations Among Gender-Role Traits, Behaviours,

Attitudes, and Conflict. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. Vol. 6(2). Pp – 83-94.

American Psychological Association. NE, Washington.

Messner, M. (1988) Sports and Male Domination: The Female Athlete as Contested

Ideological Terrain. Sociology of Sport Journal 5 (Vol. 3). Pp. 197-211. Champaign,

Illinois: Human Kinetics.

Messner, M. A. & Sabo, D. F. (1994) Sex, Violence & Power in Sports: Rethinking

Masculinity. New York: Brockport Bookshelf, State University of New York Press.

Montford, K.S. (2013) The ‘Present Referent’: Nonhuman Animal Sacrifice and the

Constitution of Dominant Albertan Identity. Journal of existential and

phenomenological theory and culture. Longueuil: Canada.

Morgan, D. L. (1988) Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.

Morgan, D.L. (1998) Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative

methods: Applications for health research. Qualitative Health Research, Vol.8, pp.

362-76. California: Sage Publications.

Mulvey,L. (1975) Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen. vol. 16(3). pp.6-18.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Noy, C. (2008) Sampling Knowledge: The Hermeneutics of Snowball Sampling in

Qualitative Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 11.

Pp. 327-44. London: Routledge.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2015) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage.

Payne, L. (1985) Crisis in masculinity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

Pike, K. L. (1954) Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human

behaviour. The Hague: Mouton.

Renzetti, C. M., & Lee, R. M. (1993) Researching sensitive topics. London: Sage.

Rifkin, J. (1993) Beyond beef: The rise and fall of the cattle culture. New York:

Plume.

Ritzer, G. (1996) Sociological Theory. Singapore: McGraw Hill.

Rogers, R. (2008) Beasts, burgers, and hummers: Meat and the crisis of masculinity

in contemporary television advertisements. Environmental Communication: A

Journal of Nature and Culture, 2, pp. 281–301. London: Routledge.

Rothgerber, H. (2012) Real Men Don't Eat (Vegetable) Quiche: Masculinity and the

Justification of Meat Consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. American

Psychological Association. NE, Washington.

Ruby, M. B., & Heine, S. (2011) Meats, morals and masculinity. Appetite, 56, pp.

447–50. Elsevier: Edinburgh.

Saltonstall,R. (1993) Healthy bodies, social bodies: Men’s and women’s concepts

and practices of health in everyday life. Social Science and Medicine 36 (1): pp. 7-

14. Elsevier: Edinburgh.

Schempp, P. (1989) Apprenticeship of observation and the development of physical

education teachers. In T. Templin, & P. Schempp (Eds.), Socialisation into physical

education: Learning to teach. pp. 13-37. Indianapolis, IN: Benchmark Press.

Scott, B. (2014) A Vegan Feminist Analysis of PETA’s Milk Gone Wild ad. (an image

I love to hate/hate to love). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.

Shilling, C. (1993) The Body and Social Theory. London: Sage.

Singer, P. (1975) Animal Liberation. London: Harper Collins.

Spivak G. C. (1985) The Rani of Sirmur: an essay in reading the archives. History

and Theory, 24(3). Pp. 247-72. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Sobal, J. (2005) Men, meat, and marriage. Models of masculinity. Food and

Foodways, 13, pp. 135–58. New York: Routledge.

Stenner, P. (1993) Discoursing jealousy. In Discourse analytic research: Repertoires

and readings of texts in action, edited by E. Burman and I. Parker, pp. 114-32.

London: Routledge.

Stibbe, A. (2004) Health and the social construction of masculinity in men’s health

magazine. Men and Masculinities, 7, pp. 31–51. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Wiegers, Y. (2003) Male bodybuilding: The social construction of a masculine

identity. Journal of Popular Culture. Pp. 147-61. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons

Inc.

Wilkinson, S. (1999) How useful are focus groups in feminist research? In

Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice, edited by R.Barbour

and J.Kitzinger, pp. 64-79. London: Sage.Women’s Studies International Forum. Vol.

10. Pp. 349-60.