The gender gap: if you're a vegetarian, odds are you're a woman. Why? - includes related articles

Vegetarian Times, Feb, 1995 by Joanne McAllister Smart

AS PRESIDENT of the North American Vegetarian Society, Jennie Collura knows plenty of vegetarians. The host of her organization's annual vegetarian conferences, she meets hundreds of committed vegetarians each year. You would think that Collura would find it easy--given her ample opportunities--to find a mate who doesn't eat meat.

You would be wrong.

"Of all the guys I've dated, none of them were vegetarians," says Collura. That includes her most recent beau, who is about as committed to eating meat as she is to not eating meat.

Though the vagaries of love and attraction are incomprehensible, there is one fact that stacks the odds against Collura falling in love with a man who is also a vegetarian: In the vegetarian population, women outnumber men by about 2 to 1. Think for a minute about all the people you know who are vegetarian: How many of them can grow a beard? According to a 1992 Yankelovich study commissioned by Vegetarian Times, of the 12.4 million people who call themselves vegetarian, 68 percent are female while only 32 percent are male.

What accounts for the disparity? Like all issues regarding gender, this one has a seat at the long-running nature vs. nurture debate. And like all discussions about the differences--or the similarities--between the sexes, there must be an acknowledgement that we are not talking about individuals, but about groups of people. We know many committed vegetarian men, and though there are more vegetarian women than there are vegetarian men, veg women are still a minority among the general population. With these thoughts in mind, let's take a look at what's behind the numbers.

For both men and women, the No. 1 reason for becoming a vegetarian is for health benefits. Nearly half of all vegetarians cite health as the single most important reason for giving up meat. And because health concerns play such a big role when people choose vegetarianism, it makes sense that there are currently more female than male vegetarians. According to statistics compiled by Men's Health magazine, women visit the doctor an average of 6.2 times per year and men 4.5 times per year. One could use these figures to argue that women are hypochondriacs, but what they show is that women take a more proactive approach to their health.

Keith Block, medical director of the Cancer Treatment Program at Edgewater Medical Center in Chicago, agrees with this assessment. "In my medical practice, I see more women making preventive care visits and exhibiting greater motivation to stay well than men," says Block. "I find women are more open and receptive to health information and more readily moved to make changes, while I frequently encounter men who wait until something goes wrong before they choose to address their physical condition."

Because they pay more attention to health matters, women are more likely to change their diets in response to the health benefits of giving up meat. Yet men should be equally attentive to how diet affects their health. More men than women have heart attacks, which are caused by clogged arteries due in large part to a high-cholesterol diet. And like breast cancer, prostate cancer has been linked to a diet high in animal fat.

Maintaining good health is certainly a major reason people pursue vegetarianism, but what often keeps them committed is an emotional response to the killing and abuse of animals. And that response, whether innate or a part of their prescribed role as nurturers, is more commonly exhibited by women. Though the animal-rights movement was founded by a man, Peter Singer, and though many of top positions within the U.S. animal-rights movement are filled by men (see "The Threat from Within," p. 62), women make up between 75 percent and 80 percent of the movement, according to Batya Bauman, president of Feminists for Animal Rights. Why is this so? Bauman thinks it is because many men are afraid to be in touch with their feelings. "I do believe women are more sensitive to the suffering of others," says Bauman. "I'm not saying men are not, but in general, women are."

There certainly are men who wouldn't kill a fly and women who toss their mink stole over their chair as they sit down to a lunch of foie gras. But even those men who are vegetarian admit that most of their brothers have a more difficult time feeling an ethical compunction to make the move to vegetarianism. "In American culture, compassion is something many men are afraid of and even feel threatened by," says Neal Barnard, M.D., president of the Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine, and a vegetarian. "For women it's an easier step."

Barnard's opinion, echoed by others, is based on observation. But there is some scientific evidence that he's right. Various studies have shown that women outscore men on reading non-verbal expressions of emotions. From this, one could see how women may be more in tune with the non-verbal suffering of animals.

Carol Adams, author of The Sexual Politics of Meat (Continuum, 1990), a detailed examination of male dominance and meat eating, believes that women are more compassionate because American society allows them to be more empathetic than men. "It's expected," says Adams. Unfortunately, she adds, "our culture doesn't believe emotion should inform thought or knowledge."