By Louis Arthur Gough
In their study, “Vegan Men and Hybrid Masculinity,” Greenebaum and Dexter (2018) quizzed vegan men about their understandings of masculinity, what is means to be a ‘man’ and their own identities as men who voluntarily violate a core tenant of hegemonic masculinity in Western cultures by eschewing ‘meat’ consumption. Cultural associations of ‘meat’ consumption and masculinity are well-documented, and the vegan men in Greenebaum and Dexter’s study actively rejected them in favour of a ‘hybrid masculinity’ expanded to include principles associated with femininity, such as care and compassion toward nonhuman animals. Notably, some rebranded these principles as masculine, ‘believing… that possessing strong values and sticking up for others and ‘being a hero’ for a cause [such as nonhuman animal liberation] is masculine’ (642). Such narratives exemplified what Greenebaum and Dexter identify as ‘men implicitly incorporat[ing] and reinforc[ing] certain hegemonic ideals of masculinity’ (643) into their veganism.
In this relation, Wright (2015) discusses the notion of ‘heganism’: a rejection of feminine associations of veganism in favour of ‘veganism as a masculine choice’ made by ‘real men’ – men strong enough to withstand social pressure and fearless enough to face ‘ridicule, judgement, and ostracism’; in short, men ‘so ultramasculine as to be able to be vegan and to make that [lifestyle] choice manly as well’ (125-126). In a new video on his YouTube page, animal rights activist Joey Carbstrong epitomised this form of hegemonically masculine vegan identity. Reflecting on the responses of men asked for their thoughts about the violent exploitation of farmed animals showing on public-facing screens, Carbstrong contrasts the response of one ‘big burly bloke’ – ‘actually a tough looking guy’ – who ‘had no problem with saying, like, that he thought that was bad and he understood why I was vegan’, with another man who mockingly states, ‘To be fair, I’d still eat them though’. Carbstrong labels the latter ‘one of them real cowardly, weak men who laugh at animals suffering’ – a man who ‘oozed insecurity and weakness’.
The former man, on the other hand, supposedly ‘oozed strength’ and ‘was very sure of himself, a very secure man [who] would probably wipe the floor with that other bloke’. ‘I would encourage men to be more like that bloke’, Carbstrong continues, ‘and it doesn’t mean you have to be, like, physically strong; it’s all about not being afraid to stand up for what you believe in, and don’t give a fuck about what your mates think’. Of himself, Carbstrong says, ‘I don’t give a fuck to tell someone I’m vegan and I care about these little animals – I don’t actually fucking care what you think, and that’s more strength than… laughing… like [you] can’t control yourself around your friends and make fun of, like, literal cruelty and suffering’. Carbstrong concludes the video with: ‘Because people talk a lot about masculinity and I don’t see much of it, eh’.
Now, I can certainly relate to the deep sense of frustration Carbstrong clearly feels in response to the harrowing plight of nonhuman animals being mocked by the public; I value his capacity to connect with working-class audiences on these issues, and his framing of veganism undoubtably resonates with a specific demographic of (largely male) vegans who too understand themselves to be ‘animal defenders’ – e.g., Anonymous for the Voiceless activists. However, by presenting himself as ‘strong’ for ‘not giv[ing] a fuck’ about what others think about his ethical concern for ‘little animals’, Carbstrong is performing ‘veganism-as-machismo’ (Jones 2021). As Jones (ibid.) discusses – echoing Greenebaum and Dexter (2018) – rather than challenging hegemonic masculinity, such performances merely expand what can be considered hegemonically masculine. Carbstrong repackages care and compassion for nonhuman animals as an individualistic ‘emotional stoicism’, ‘bravery’ and ‘strength’, and in doing so manages to hold on to his ‘dominance as [a] hegemonic [man] in patriarchal culture’ (Greenebaum & Dexter 2018, 637) whilst being vegan. Masculinist framings of veganism – or, heganism – often downplay the ethical components of the lifestyle/philosophy, emphasising physical strength, athleticism and individual health ‘gains’ instead (Greenebaum & Dexter 2018; Jones 2021; Wright 2015). Carbstrong exemplifies the ethical hegan.
Perhaps the most offensive part of Carbstrong’s video is his talk of violence: ‘[he]’ – the man who ‘had no problem with saying… that he thought [nonhuman animal exploitation] was bad’, despite not being vegan himself – ‘would probably wipe the floor with that other bloke’. Israel’s oxymoronic claims of a (genocidal) ‘vegan army’ (Vegans for Palestine 2025; see also Zein 2025) notwithstanding, the connections between veganism/vegetarianism and pacifism run deep, as do the connections between ‘meat’ consumption and war (Adams 2024). Sadly, Carbstrong’s need to assert his masculinity through talk of violent domination over ‘weak men’ both redirects his audience’s attention away from human-directed nonhuman animal suffering and perpetuates one of the key components of the ideology that justifies it in the first place: a ‘might-makes-right’, patriarchal dominance over feminised bodies (Adams 2024).
Whilst Carbstrong talks of dominating ‘weak’ – non-masculine, i.e., feminised – men, he ostensibly does so in ‘defence’ of nonhuman animals. The latter is also problematic. Framing nonhuman animals as passive beings in need of human defence – as opposed to agents of their own resistance against oppression, which we must support and with whom we should stand in solidarity (Colling et al. 2014) – produces an anthropocentric and paternalistic narrative of human-animal relations that infantilises nonhumans and centres (delusions of) human heroism – contributing to what Trenkova (2020) calls a ‘toxic human savior complex’. Such framings correspond with hyper-rational conceptions of veganism, which I have moaned about in a previous post. Ultimately, by attempting to distance themselves from – and/or appropriate into hegemonically masculine narratives and identities – the supposedly feminine, hegans of any persuasion perpetuate sexism and, in turn, anthropocentric speciesism (Wrenn 2022).
References
Adams, C. J., 2024. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegan Critical Theory. Bloomsbury Revelations 35th Anniversary Edition. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Colling, S., Parson, S. & Arrigoni, A., 2014. Until All Are Free: Total Liberation through Revolutionary Decolonization, Groundless Solidarity, and a Relationship Framework. Counterpoints, Volume 448, pp. 51-73.
Greenebaum, J. & Dexter, B., 2018. Vegan Men and Hybrid Masculinity. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(6), pp. 637-648.
Jones, R., 2021. A Recipe for Heganism? Masculinity, Meat-Avoidance and the Cookbook. Sociální Studia, 18(2), pp. 105-121.
Trenkova, L., 2020. Conversations With Activists: Why Should LGBTQIA+ and Vegan Communities Work Together to Fight Intersecting Oppressions?. In: J. Feliz Brueck & Z. McNeill, eds. Queer and Trans Voices: Achieving Liberation Through Consistent Anti-Oppression. s.l: Sanctuary Publishers, pp. 313-317.
Vegans for Palestine, 2025. Rejecting Isr@el’s Genocidal “Vegan Revolution”. Vegans for Palestine Podcasts, ep. 4.
Wrenn, C. L., 2022. Heganism is Sexist. [Online] [Accessed: 11/09/2025].
Wright, L., 2015. The Vegan Studies Project: Food, Animals, and Gender in the Age of Terror. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.
Zein, D., 2025. Can Social Sciences Contribute to a Decolonial and Intersectional Veganism? The Animal Liberation Movement in Times of Genocide. [Online] [Accessed: 11/09/2025].