Masculinity and food ideals of men who live alone

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Appetite 51 (2008) 120–128 www.elsevier.com/locate/appet

Research report

Masculinity and food ideals of men who live alone Kari Sellaeg a, Gwen E. Chapman b,* b

a Roche Norge AS, Postboks 41 Haugenstua, 0915 Oslo, Norway Food, Nutrition & Health, 2205 East Mall, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Z4

Received 4 July 2007; received in revised form 19 November 2007; accepted 14 January 2008

Abstract Most studies of social aspects of foods have focused on people in multi-person households, often from the perspective of women. Little is known about the food-related experiences of men who live alone. We therefore conducted a qualitative study with 12 men aged 27–47 who lived alone in Vancouver, Canada. Our goals were to explore their food-related ideals, and their perceptions of how those ideals relate to their actual food practices, the context of living alone, and masculine identities. Data were collected through food journals and semi-structured interviews. The men’s ideals included being conscious and organized with respect to food so that they could regularly eat meals prepared at home from healthy ingredients. Eating with others was considered an ideal food context, where the meal became an ‘‘occasion’’, as opposed to ‘‘just eating’’. Participants believed that their eating habits often did not live up to these ideals because of lack of time and because the context of living alone was not conducive to eating well. However, they thought their habits were better than what they perceived to be the habits of a stereotypical bachelor who does not know how to cook and has a ‘who cares’ attitude towards food. # 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Food choice; Masculinity; Living alone; Food ideals

Introduction Nutrition surveys continue to demonstrate gaps between nutrition recommendations and the eating habits of people in developed countries, despite an abundance of foods to choose from and ubiquitous nutrition education messages (Garriguet, 2006; Hoare et al., 2004; Moshfegh, Goldman, & Cleveland, 2005). This has led to a growing body of literature examining the factors and processes shaping people’s everyday eating practices. Food choices are now seen to result from the complex interplay of individual, interpersonal, social, cultural and environmental determinants (Raine, 2005; Wetter et al., 2001). The specific foods individuals select reflect not only their ideals, values and priorities regarding food and eating, but also structural factors experienced over the lifecourse that shape the personal food choice system, such as the food environment, economic context, family and peer influences, household structure, and gender (Bisogni, Connors, Devine, & Sobal, 2002; Furst, Connors, Bisogni, Sobal, & Falk, 1996). Food habits can thus be conceptualized as specific everyday practices

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.E. Chapman). 0195-6663/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2008.01.003

that are intimately related to ideals or discourses that are in turn constructed in relation to macro social structures. However, despite recent interest in food choice processes, relatively few studies have examined the role of food-related ideals or discourse as intermediate between macro social constructs and micro everyday practices. Most of the research exploring social aspects of food practices has focused on the experiences of people in multiperson households, particularly heterosexual couples with and without children (Bove, Sobal, & Rauschenbach, 2003; Charles & Kerr, 1988; DeVault, 1991; Kemmer, Anderson, & Marshall, 1998; Lupton, 2000). Findings have demonstrated that other household members are perceived to influence individuals’ personal food habits, resulting in a healthier diet and enhanced enjoyment around food (Kemmer et al., 1998). Food practices can also be a site of conflict within the family and a location where gender-based power inequalities are enacted (Bove et al., 2003; Charles & Kerr, 1988; DeVault, 1991). Women continue to be responsible for the bulk of domestic food work, despite their increased participation in paid employment outside the home (Lake et al., 2006; Lupton, 2000; Sullivan, 2000). In comparison, very little is known about the food-related experiences of people who live alone (Jensen & Holm, 1999). It is important to address this gap, as the number of one-person

K. Sellaeg, G.E. Chapman / Appetite 51 (2008) 120–128

households is increasing in many countries (National Agency for Enterprise and Housing, 2004; Statistics Canada, 2002a; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). In Canada, for example, oneperson households increased from about 20% of all households in 1981 to just over 25% in 2001, when 10% of Canadians lived in one-person households (Statistics Canada, 2002a). In 2003, one-person households in 14 EU counties ranged from 13% of households in Spain to 46% in Sweden (National Agency for Enterprise and Housing, 2004). Although some of this increase is due to the aging of these populations, a higher proportion of younger people are also choosing to live alone (Statistics Canada, 2002b). Empirical data show that people who live alone spend more money per person on food and a higher proportion of their food dollar eating out (Blisard & Stewart, 2007; Statistics Canada, 2003). They also consume less adequate diets (Gerrior et al., 1995). In addition, one-person households represent a unique context with respect to commensal aspects of food habits. In contemporary society, most people frequently eat an evening meal with members of their immediate family. People who live alone, however, tend to eat with friends more often (Sobal & Nelson, 2003). It is likely that the processes by which social context shapes the food practices of people who live alone differ for men and women. Studies of the meanings of food show consistent associations between gender and specific foods, where meat (especially red meat), alcohol, and hearty portion sizes are associated with masculinity, while vegetables, fruit, fish and sour dairy products (e.g., yogurt, cottage cheese) are associated with femininity (Jensen & Holm, 1999; Sobal, 2005). Current nutrition education messages promote diets high in ‘feminine’ foods, with reduced consumption of ‘masculine’ foods. Not surprisingly, then, men’s diets are typically understood to be unhealthy, men are often seen as lacking knowledge regarding healthy eating and needing guidance from women and health experts, and interest in healthy eating is seen as women’s domain (Gough, 2007; Jensen & Holm, 1999). Everyday domestic cooking is also constructed as women’s domain. Although media images of men cooking are not uncommon, men’s cooking is associated with manly foods (e.g., grilling steak or wild game), special accomplishments or events, and little attention to the food preferences and needs of other family members (Hollows, 2003; Inness, 2001). These themes are echoed in the findings of qualitative studies of masculinity and food conducted in England (Gough & Conner, 2006), Finland (Roos, Prattala, & Koski, 2001), and Norway (Roos & Wandel, 2005). These studies take a social constructionist perspective of gender, where gender is viewed as an active and dynamic social structure (Courtenay, 2000). Men and women enact varied gendered identities through attitudes and behaviors that their culture associates with different versions of masculinity and femininity. Practices associated with the most valued or normative way of being a man form hegemonic masculinity, but alternative patterns of masculinity with different relations to authority and social power are also apparent (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). The studies of masculinity and food have shown that, in their discussions of eating, diet and health, the men’s comments

121

tended to reflect traditional constructions of masculinity that position food and health promoting behaviors as of little interest to men (Courtenay, 2000). The men usually spoke of eating as habitual and routine, and as necessary to fuel their bodies. Although they were aware of healthy eating guidelines, they often showed some skepticism and resistance to nutrition education messages, and described healthy eating as monotonous and unsatisfying. However, there were also indications of alternative constructions of masculinity (Sobal, 2005). Some men did express interest in food, cooking, and health, and indicated that they were reducing their consumption of red meat and increasing consumption of vegetables. These alternative experiences with food were more commonly expressed by engineers than by carpenters or drivers, suggesting that social class may mediate associations between masculinity and food (Roos et al., 2001; Roos & Wandel, 2005). The role of family structure was not specifically addressed in these studies of men’s experiences with food, although most participants were married. No research has examined how the relationships between food practices and masculinities are implicated in the everyday food practices of men who live alone. It seems likely that single men would construct their eating habits quite differently than married or cohabiting men, given that they are not dealing with household gender relations and power dynamics, and that there is no woman in the home to be the default provisioner of meals and nutrition expertise (DeVault, 1991; Gough, 2007). The exploratory study presented in this paper was thus designed to examine the everyday food practices of men who live alone. Given our theoretical understanding that food practices are shaped by ideals or discourses that are in turn constructed in relation to macro social structures, we particularly wanted to understand participants’ food-related ideals, how they understood the relationships between their food practices and ideals, and how their food practices, ideals, and understandings arose from the specific social context at the intersection of masculinity and living alone. Building on the work of Furst et al. (1996), we use the term ‘ideals’ to refer to people’s standards, expectations, hopes and beliefs for how they should eat. Ideals can have many forms, such as symbolic meaning, ethics, or traditions, and can function as point of reference to which people compare and judge their own food habits. Methods Our research is based in a constructionist approach, which assumes that people actively construct the meaning of their social world through interactions with each other, that multiple meanings of social phenomenon coexist, and that researchers are active participants in the knowledge creation process (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). We used a qualitative research approach, as this method is particularly suitable when exploring a complex topic that requires access to participants’ lived experiences and where little prior knowledge is available (Mason, 1996). All study procedures were approved by the University of British Columbia’s ethics committee.

122

K. Sellaeg, G.E. Chapman / Appetite 51 (2008) 120–128

Study participants In order to adequately explore our area of interest – i.e., interrelationships among daily food practices, food-related ideals, and the social context of masculinity and living alone – the study required in-depth data collection with a small group of participants (Mason, 1996). Our goal was to obtain a sample of men who had established their personal food habits as independent adults and who were similar with respect to current and past food context. We therefore limited the sample to men aged 25–49 who had lived alone for a minimum of 6 months and were of Euro-Canadian descent, resident in Vancouver, and able to converse comfortably in English. We also chose to include only men who defined themselves as full time workers as we believed this would ensure a certain level of food security and similarity with respect to time available for food-related activities. Within those restrictions, we sought a sample with diversity in age, occupation, education, length of time living alone, and previous living arrangements. Participants were recruited using notices posted in the community and snowball sampling techniques. In addition to these convenience sampling approaches, towards the end of the study we used purposive sampling to include men with different eating habits, such as a man who mostly ate at home and paid close attention to healthy eating. All recruitment procedures highlighted that the purpose of the study was to explore food-related work and decision-making, and that participants would receive a CAN$ 25 gift certificate to a restaurant or music store of his choice. Potential participants were informed that the research was being conducted for a Human Nutrition Masters project, but it was emphasized that they did not have to consider themselves to be particularly healthy eaters in order to participate. Recruitment and data collection occurred concurrently with analysis until a satisfactory level of theoretical saturation was reached (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). The final sample included twelve men, all of whom were raised in Canada. Their ages ranged from 27 to 47; eight were around 30 years old, while the other four were in their forties. All but one had acquired some level of secondary education, and they were employed in a variety of jobs, including house painter, technician, artist, teacher and health professional. With regards to previous household contexts, three participants had parents who divorced when they were quite young, and the others described growing up in heterosexual, nuclear families with one or several siblings. Since leaving their childhood home, participants had experienced different types of households: Three had lived in student residences, five had been married or cohabited with female partners, and all had lived with one or several roommates. The duration of living alone ranged from 8 months to 15 years, with the men in the higher end of the age range tending to have lived alone longer than the younger men. Most reported that it took some time to adjust to living alone, but that they now enjoyed the freedom and independence it offered. A few indicated that they still found it lonely at times. Living alone did not necessarily mean being single, and five participants mentioned being in relationships at the time of the study. The men were not asked to define their

sexual orientation, however, when discussing previous, current or future relationships all but one referred to being with women. No similar references were made for relationships with other men. None of the participants had part- or full time responsibility for children. Data collection Data were collected through food journals and qualitative interviews. Each participant first recorded all his food-related experiences (including eating, drinking and grocery shopping) throughout 1 week in a booklet we provided. The booklet contained labeled columns where participants were asked to record not only what they consumed, but also where, when and with whom the events took place, the planning, preparation and clean up involved (if any), and the context, feelings and underlying reasons for the food choices being made. This was followed by a qualitative interview, where participants were asked open ended questions from a semi-structured interview guide and encouraged to expand on their descriptions through attentive listening and probes. Participants were first asked to describe their food habits in previous life stages, including childhood and previous adult living arrangements, as well as their experience of living alone and how they believed this social framework influenced their daily food practices. In the main part of the interview, each participant was asked to expand on four to six selected events from his food journal. Based on these events, questions and probes were individually designed to obtain a rich and detailed description of the participant’s daily food practices and food-related decision-making, as well as his underlying attitudes and beliefs, particularly with respect to social aspects of food and perceptions of healthy eating. The interview ended with questions about the participant’s perceptions of his own identity, how he used food habits to express himself, and his thoughts about how men and women eat and express their identities through food. To allow the interviewer sufficient time to review the food journal information and develop specific probes based on the journal, but at the same time allow the recorded week to be relatively fresh in the participant’s memory, each participant was interviewed 2–7 days after he had completed the journal. All interviews were conducted by the first author, who had obtained interview training through two university courses. Interviews lasted from 45 to 85 min and were tape-recorded and later transcribed verbatim. Data analysis Data analysis involved standard qualitative procedures based on the constant comparative method, including coding, summarizing and comparing text in the food journals and interview transcripts (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Analysis was facilitated through use of the qualitative data management software, Atlas.ti (Version 4.1) (Muhr, 1997). Data from food journals were summarized into tables to provide a descriptive overview of participants’ overall food habits. Transcripts were coded according to topics (e.g.,

K. Sellaeg, G.E. Chapman / Appetite 51 (2008) 120–128

‘shopping’, ‘eating out’, ‘cooking’, ‘living alone and food habits’, ‘perceptions of healthy eating’, ‘identity description’, etc.). Coding occurred concurrently with data collection and the code list was constantly modified to fit information provided by new participants. Text segments indexed with the same code were compared across participants by summarizing text segments into matrixes and summaries. Analytical memos were written to develop themes within and across codes, providing an in depth understanding of the participants’ foodrelated practices, attitudes and beliefs. The first author conducted each step of the data collection and analysis, which facilitated establishing of rapport with the participants and prolonged engagement with the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1986; Mason, 1996). Regular peer debriefing with second author throughout these steps guided the process and enhanced the rigor of the interpretations. Credibility of study findings was also enhanced by asking follow-up questions in the interviews to test preliminary findings as well as collecting data both through food journals and interviews (triangulation) (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). Results Food choice ideals—perceptions of eating well When describing their food-related activities, participants often made reference to underlying ideals they held for food and eating, including their expectations and beliefs about what and how they ‘‘should eat’’, as well as the standards to which they compared their own practices and judged them as ‘‘good‘‘ or ‘‘bad’’. ‘‘Healthy eating’’ emerged as the dominant component of eating well, but other concerns such as sociability also came into play. Overall, ideals related to three dimensions of food habits: the foods consumed, eating context, and ‘ways of being’ in relation to food. Participants were consistent in their descriptions with respect to a few foods, nutrients, and food production or preparation processes that should or should not be a part of one’s eating habits. Vegetables and fruits were frequently named as ‘‘healthy’’. Even more often, junk foods such as chocolate and/or potato chips and fast foods such as 99-cent pizza slices or food from McDonald’s were described as nonideal. While only one participant avoided meat, many believed that it is healthier to be vegetarian and emphasized the importance of moderation if meat is included in the diet. One man, for example, defined healthy eating as ‘‘more fiber and vegetables, and less protein, less meat at least.’’ Many participants believed that a high fat intake is ‘‘bad for you,’’ and considered compounds such as toxins, pesticides, preservatives, hormones and antibiotics to be unhealthy. Examples of ideal food components were scarce, but included fiber and enzymes. Finally, almost all participants expressed negative attitudes towards processed foods, while many considered organic foods to be ‘‘better’’ than their conventionally produced counterparts. The second dimension of the participants’ ideals for how one should eat concerned eating context. Most participants believed

123

that eating regularly and having frequent meals were important parts of ‘‘good food habits’’, and expressed negative attitudes towards skipping meals, particularly breakfast. Some participants considered eating with others to be a more ideal food context, because the meal then became more of an ‘‘event’’ or an ‘‘occasion’’, as opposed to ‘‘just eating’’. One of the ideals for food habits that emerged with the strongest consistency across the sample was the participants’ perception of food prepared at home as being better than food bought in public eating establishments, mainly because it was believed to be healthier. Eating in was associated with ‘‘having control over what goes into the food’’, both in terms of including the ‘‘right’’ foods and compounds (e.g., vegetables, natural foods), but more importantly, avoiding ‘‘bad’’ aspects (e.g., high fat intake, processed foods). One participant explained why he tried to bring food from home to eat for lunch at work: [It’s] a matter of having enough food to eat and just knowing that it’s, I made it, I know what’s in it, I know it’s containing these ingredients which are good for me. Whereas it’s kind of a gamble, you know, when you go out and eat for lunch, you know there is no, what kind of ingredients are they using, how much of it’s like processed food. The third dimension of food-related ideals involved participants’ beliefs regarding how one ‘‘should be’’ in relation to food and eating. Several men talked about ‘‘being organized’’ as the ideal way of managing personal food habits: shopping regularly for groceries, having food available in the kitchen, planning the grocery shopping by writing shopping lists and planning meals in advance. Most participants also talked about ‘‘being conscious’’ as the attitude one should have towards food and eating, using phrases such as ‘‘striving to be healthy’’, ‘‘health awareness’’ or ‘‘making reasonable decisions’’, as opposed to having ‘‘a who cares attitude’’ towards personal food habits. Overall, being organized and aware in relation to food habits was seen as necessary for meeting the ideals regarding types of foods and eating contexts previously described. Barriers to eating well: lifestyle, time, living alone While participants generally agreed as to what ‘‘eating well’’ would look like, their personal food habits often failed to measure up to these standards. Their food journal entries and interview descriptions of usual eating habits showed that many of them frequently ate out1 and when they did eat at home, they often chose convenient ‘‘quick and easy’’ options that did not meet their ideal of avoiding processed foods. They also talked about being less organized around shopping and food preparation than they would like to be. 1 According to their food journal entries, two participants ate or prepared almost all of their meals and snacks at home, five ate or prepared foods at home about half the time, two ate or prepared foods at home about a third of the time, and three did so less than a fifth of the time. This latter group included one man who ate no home-prepared foods during the week he completed the food journal.

124

K. Sellaeg, G.E. Chapman / Appetite 51 (2008) 120–128

Being busy and not having enough time were the primary reasons participants gave for not meeting their eating ideals. Lack of time was sometimes attributed to the demands of their employment: ‘‘If I had more spare time and less time at work, then I would be eating a lot better. When I cook for myself, it’s always healthy and good, but I find that time always is an issue.’’ In addition, many of the men described spending a substantial part of their spare time engaged in social activities away from their homes, which further reduced the time available for food-related activities at home: ‘‘Because I’m out a lot, and because I go to people’s houses after work, continue and go to the gym which interrupts dinner, things like that, I’m less likely to be organized around cooking properly.’’ When asked how living alone affected their food practices, most participants indicated that they believed that this living situation resulted in ‘‘worse’’ habits. Most of them specifically indicated that their diets were less healthy because they lived alone, although two participants denied this. For these men, however, living alone prevented them from meeting other ideals for food habits, where eating well involves enjoying food in the company of other people. When judging their current food habits as ‘‘worse’’, participants would usually use their previous experiences or future anticipations of living with a female partner or in a nuclear family as their point of reference, and appeared to view these household types as the ideal context for healthy or otherwise ideal eating. Participants discussed three main reasons why absence of other household members has a negative impact on food habits. First, many participants believed that they were less likely to make healthy food choices for themselves when there was no one else to care for or feel responsible for: I think my food habits would probably be better if I didn’t live alone . . . because there would be some sense of responsibility for meals for other people. For me I can really, you know, if I’m busy just kind of skip a meal and kind of snack a little bit later or whatever. Some participants also talked about how a partner might encourage better practices and discourage ‘‘bad’’ choices: ‘‘It’s because I’m alone, I don’t have anybody to tell me that I can’t have what I’m eating. So I’ll eat whatever is gonna suit me at the time.’’ Second, the absence of other household members meant that there was no one besides themselves to cook for. Although participants perceived themselves as having sufficient foodpreparation skills, they often mentioned how they lacked motivation to cook because they felt that it was ‘‘pointless’’ to put a lot of time and effort into preparing food ‘‘just’’ for themselves. Although it is possible for people who live in oneperson households to plan, prepare and/or consume in-home meals with other people, the food diaries and the interviews indicated that this happened rarely for these twelve men. Cooking food and eating at home was something the participants usually did alone, which they described as ‘‘no fun’’: I don’t get pleasure out of it, out of cooking for myself. Like the food, that’s not where the pleasure of cooking comes

from, it’s not the, I don’t know. It’s preparing something for somebody else or for other people that I think, that’s where my cooking pleasure, so no, I don’t [cook just for myself]. As a result, even though participants said they enjoyed cooking and perceived food prepared at home to be more ideal, most frequently chose to eat out. The two participants who made most of their meals at home also referred to how living alone reduced their motivation for food work. They therefore chose foods what were quicker and easier to make as opposed to if they were cooking with, or for, others: [M]eals (when eating alone) tend to be very practical, quick to do and nutritious as opposed to savoring and having a long extravagant meal . . . It’s making the choices that I’d rather do something else with that time. This quote also provides an example of how the living alone intersected with perceptions of lack of time: because they lived alone, other concerns took a higher priority in their time management than did food-related work. The third theme in participants’ explanations for why living alone results in poorer eating habits was the desire for sociability. For some of the participants, eating out with friends represented important structures in their social lives: ‘‘I’d come home from work and I’d just wanna go out, you know, maybe be social and that might include going out for dinner and stuff.’’ Masculinity In contrast to their ready comments on the effects of living alone, participants had more difficulty articulating how their gender related to their daily food practices. However, the opinions and beliefs they expressed regarding food habits and their perceptions of themselves indicate ways in which their food habits function as a means of demonstrating their masculine identity. One theme that emerged in this respect was how participants tended to reject attitudes associated with traditional hegemonic masculinity and instead, articulated more traditionally feminine ideals regarding healthy eating. While the study design did not include food intake measures sensitive enough to evaluate the actual ‘‘healthiness’’ of the participants’ diets, the discussions clearly reflected that health and nutrition were part of the their considerations. This was apparent in response to the questions about perceptions of healthy eating, but it was also frequently brought up in other parts of the interview, such as when participants were describing the events selected from the food journals. While many participants found it difficult to describe how their own personality/identity was expressed through their food habits, they had less difficulty making assumptions about the food habits of other men who lived by themselves. A remarkably consistent theme emerged across the sample with respect to the participants’ perceptions of the stereotypical bachelor and his food habits. This persona was believed to have ‘‘bad’’ food habits due to not meeting the ideals of ‘‘being organized’’ and ‘‘being conscious’’. Many assumed that ‘‘the

K. Sellaeg, G.E. Chapman / Appetite 51 (2008) 120–128

guy with the dirty place and the pizza boxes’’ (as one participant described the single male stereotype), ate out ‘‘all the time’’ and usually chose fast food restaurants. His lack of consideration resulted in unhealthy choices and no ‘‘food style’’: ‘‘You know that food to them [other men] is like slices of pizza and Subway and it’s like McDonald’s and it’s just like not just even a consideration for them’’. Participants often used the food habits of the male stereotype as a point of reference to which they compared and judged their own practices as ‘‘better’’, mainly because they considered themselves to be more ‘‘conscious’’. Their discussions around food identity thereby became a means of constructing their own masculine identity as it related to food habits. ‘‘Being conscious’’ was considered a prerequisite for healthy eating, and being ‘‘better’’ than the stereotypical bachelor by being more ‘‘conscious’’ (or at least wanting to be more ‘‘conscious’’) therefore also implied having (or wanting to have) healthier food habits. In addition, participants also appeared to reject traditional hegemonic masculinity as it relates to food-related work, by consistently expressing positive attitudes towards men’s involvement in cooking and other food-related activities. The participants generally perceived themselves as holding sufficient food preparation skills and many even described themselves as ‘‘good cooks’’. The amount and type of preparation involved in the meals the participants had recorded in the food journals varied, indicating that ‘‘being a good cook’’ might have had a somewhat different meaning across the sample. However, none of the participants recognized limited preparation skills as a factor that strongly impacted their food-related decision-making, and all of them indicated that they enjoyed cooking as an activity. Having a certain level of food preparation skills also appeared to be a part of the ideal masculine identity participants presented in their interviews. ‘‘Being able to cook’’ meant ‘‘being able to fend for yourself’’, hence it was associated with independence and self-sufficiency. The stereotypical bachelor described earlier was not believed to hold sufficient food preparing skills, and again many participants referred to this persona to distinguish themselves as ‘‘better’’. The lack of ability to prepare food associated with the stereotypical man often evoked feelings of disrespect and pity: And I still know people, guys my age, who are thirty and they’ve been living alone for like ten years and they just can’t cook. It’s like pathetic. I mean if anything, you gotta learn how to cook a little something. Three participants also mentioned how they considered food preparation skills to be an important part of an ideal masculine identity for heterosexual men, in that it could function as a means of impressing women: Cooking seems to be something that is becoming a lot more known for guys that are single. It’s something that guys are more picking up, because they are realizing that: ‘‘Hey, you know what? If I cook a really good meal for a girl, they will try to date you. I’ve got (unclear) points there.’’ It’s, it’s more of a: ‘‘Hm, if I learn how to cook I would be impressive, wouldn’t I?’’

125

Overall, the participants presented an ideal masculine identity as a man who is concerned about food and nutrition, who practices what they perceived as healthy eating, and who can cook. Discussion In this study, we explored the food-related ideals of men who lived alone in Vancouver, Canada, their understandings of the relationship between those ideals and their everyday eating practices, and how the context of living alone and constructions of masculinity may be implicated in these experiences. The men’s ideals included being conscious and organized with respect to food and eating so that they could regularly eat meals prepared at home from healthy foods and ingredients. Eating with others was considered an ideal food context, where the meal became an ‘‘event’’ or an ‘‘occasion’’, as opposed to ‘‘just eating’’. Participants believed that their actual eating habits often did not live up to these ideals because of lack of time and because the context of living alone was not conducive to eating well. However, they presented themselves as having better eating habits than those of a stereotypical bachelor who does not know how to cook and has a ‘who cares’ attitude towards food. These findings are in contrast to those of other studies of men’s perspectives on food and eating, which have mostly found men to show skepticism and resistance to healthy eating guidelines (Gough & Conner, 2006; Roos et al., 2001; Roos & Wandel, 2005). In the traditional versions of masculinity expressed by participants in those studies, men have emphasized the need to eat to satisfy hunger and fuel their bodies. Health promoting aspects of diet have been seen as women’s concerns. The greater acceptance of and emphasis on healthy eating shown by participants in our study resemble the views of a minority of men in these studies, mostly expressed by men in a professional occupation (engineering) with greater education (Roos et al., 2001; Roos & Wandel, 2005). There are several possible explanations for why the participants in our study consistently articulated a nontraditional masculinity with regards to food and health. First, this may reflect participants’ relatively high social class position as all but one had at least some education beyond high school and all could afford to live alone in an urban environment with high housing costs. Second, their nontraditional views may reflect change over time in constructions of masculinity, as their interviews were conducted in 2001– 2002. Roos et al. (2001) noted that their interviews with carpenters (who expressed more traditional views) were conducted in the early 1990s, while the interviews with engineers (who expressed less traditional views) were conducted 7 years later. The interviews reported by Gough and Conner (2006) was conducted in the mid to late 1990s. Third, the views of men in our study may relate to the specific culture of the west coast North American urban environment where they lived. In other research conducted in two Canadian cities, we have found that health and ethical issues play a

126

K. Sellaeg, G.E. Chapman / Appetite 51 (2008) 120–128

stronger role in the food decision-making of people in Vancouver than in Halifax, on Canada’s east coast (Ristovski-Slijepcevic, Chapman, & Beagan, 2008). Participants’ responses regarding food and health may also have been influenced by the identity of the interviewer. Although they were assured, both through the recruitment notice and when first talking to the interviewer, that the study concerned food-related work and decision-making, not intake of nutrients, the participants knew the interviewer was a Human Nutrition student. This may have prompted participants to talk more about healthy foods and healthy eating than they would have had the study been conducted within a different academic discipline. Similarly, participants may have communicated more feminized approaches to food and eating because they were being interviewed by a woman. Individuals may construct their gendered identities in different ways in the various social contexts that they encounter, including interactions between researcher and the researched (Herod, 1993; Manderson, Bennett, & Andajani-Sutjahjo, 2006). Our participants might have been less reluctant to reject traditional masculine attitudes to food in interviews conducted by a male researcher. In that context, they may have presented a more hyper-masculinized identity, down-playing more feminine aspects of their identity. The masculine identities presented to an interviewer of one gender may be no less ‘true’ than the identities presented to an interviewer of another gender, but demonstrate the different ways people manage presentation of gender in different contexts. The men in our study also showed alternative views of men’s roles in domestic cooking, which traditionally have been considered women’s work. The participants all talked about enjoying cooking, and indicated that engaging in this activity was considered suitable and even desirable for men. In addition, being able to cook was considered important for ‘being a man’ in that possessing such skills was viewed as an essential part of being independent and self-sufficient. Participants’ positioned their own constructions of masculinity as outside of the norm, though, as they identified ‘typical’ men who live alone as embodying a more traditional hegemonic masculinity, with lack of attention, interest, and skill in food preparation. As with the non-traditional views they presented regarding food and health, participants may have been distancing themselves from traditional masculine identities because they were being interviewed by a woman (Herod, 1993; Manderson, Bennett, & Andajani-Sutjahjo, 2006). Despite their assertions that their eating habits were ‘better’ than those of the stereotypical bachelor, participants felt they were not able to put all of their ideals into practice. Their primary explanation for this was lack of time, which has been noted as a barrier to healthy eating in other studies of food choice processes (Connors, Bisogni, Sobal, & Devine, 2001/ 2006; Furst et al., 1996; Jabs & Devine, 2006/9). They also felt that living alone was a barrier to healthy eating because there is no one to care for or be cared for by, there is no one else to cook for, and they ate out frequently in order to have other people to eat with. The linking of eating well to a family context where family members encourage each other to eat well echoes some

aspects of conventional constructions of gender where men are independent, strong and tough, and often engage in risk behaviours, while health and safety are seen as women’s concerns (Courtenay, 2000). Some of the men in this study thus saw taking care of their own health as a low priority and believed that they might eat better if they had a female partner monitoring what they eat and encouraging them to eat better. Interestingly, several of the participants could also see themselves eating better as a part of encouraging a partner or children to eat healthfully, perhaps reflecting the ‘sensitive man’ model of masculinity described by Sobal (2005) and noted in studies of dietary change following marriage or cohabitation (Bove et al., 2003; Sobal, Bove, & Rauschenbach, 2002). Participants’ lack of motivation to cook for themselves supports other commentaries on shifts in constructions of men and domestic cooking (Gough, 2007; Hollows, 2003). Men are clearly doing more domestic food work than they did in previous decades (Jabs & Devine, 2006; Lake et al., 2006; Sullivan, 2000), and media representations increasingly show men involved in cooking at home (Gough, 2007; Hollows, 2003; Inness, 2001). However, men still perform much less of this work than women, and their involvement is portrayed as focusing on entertainment, style, and fun. Mundane day-to-day provision of household meals is still largely constructed as women’s work. It is not surprising, then, that although participants in this study supported the notion of men cooking at home, they saw little value or pleasure in cooking for themselves. Perhaps more surprising is that they did not translate this into regularly entertaining friends over a meal at home. Instead, they met their social needs by eating out with friends—a context that they and participants in other studies associate with unhealthy eating (Chapman & Maclean, 1993; Lupton, 1996). As with all studies, there are limitations to our research that must be considered in applying findings to other settings (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). Our sample was very small, and included relatively well-educated men with sufficient income that they were able to live alone in a city with high housing costs. They all lived in the same urban, West Coast Canadian environment, and were interviewed by a woman who they knew was a graduate student in nutrition. Within this context, however, by using two data collection methods and in-depth analysis, we were able to saturate our major themes. While our findings will not apply to all men who live alone, they provide a detailed picture of the way this group men presented their everyday food practices and ideals. Further research is needed with larger samples, different interviewers, and with men in other contexts to assess the degree to which these findings can be transferred to other settings. Overall, the findings of this study suggest that for men living alone in Vancouver, shifting constructions of masculinity and food provide both facilitators and barriers to healthy eating. On the positive side, in contrast to conventional constructions that position men as disinterested in and resistant to nutrition education, the masculinities embraced by these study participants see it as appropriate for men to be aware of health and

K. Sellaeg, G.E. Chapman / Appetite 51 (2008) 120–128

nutrition and to include health as a major component of eating well. On the negative side, however, taking action on healthy eating still appears to be something men might do in the context of family relationships, rather than independently. As well, the constellation of meanings where masculine domestic cooking is constructed as fun and entertainment, social relationships involve eating out, and healthy eating is associated with home cooking meant that most participants ate out frequently (and thus, by their definitions, unhealthfully). To promote healthy eating for this group of men, it may be useful to provide messages that emphasize how men can use their independence to adopt healthful behaviors on their own without the presence of other family members. Men’s domestic cooking should also be promoted as including mundane, everyday meal preparation, as well as entertaining friends at home. Finally, it might be useful to challenge assumptions that eating out is necessarily unhealthful and emphasize ways in which eating out and healthy eating can be compatible. References Bisogni, C. A., Connors, M., Devine, C. M., & Sobal, J. (2002). Who we are and how we eat: A qualitative study of identities in food choice. Journal of Nutrition Education & Behavior, 34(June (3)), 128–139. Blisard, N., & Stewart, H. (2007). Food spending in American households, 2003–04 No. Economic Information Bulletin No. 23). United States: USDA Economic Research Service. Bove, C. F., Sobal, J., & Rauschenbach, B. S. (2003). Food choices among newly married couples: Convergence, conflict, individualism, and projects. Appetite, 40(1), 25–41. Chapman, G., & Maclean, H. (1993). Junk food and healthy food—meanings of food in adolescent women’s culture. Journal of Nutrition Education, 25(3), 108–113. Charles, N., & Kerr, M. (1988). Women, food and families. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. Connors, M., Bisogni, C. A., Sobal, J., & Devine, C. M. (2001). Managing values in personal food systems. Appetite, 36(3), 189–200. Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being: A theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine, 50(10), 1385–1401. DeVault, M. L. (1991). Feeding the family: The social organization of caring as gendered work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Furst, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C. A., Sobal, J., & Falk, L. W. (1996). Food choice: A conceptual model of the process. Appetite, 26(3), 247–265. Garriguet, D. (2006). Nutrition: Findings from the Canadian community health survey. Overview of Canadians’ eating habits 2004 No. Catalogue no. 82620-MIE -No. 2). Ottawa: Health Statistics Division, Statistics Canada. Gerrior, S. A., Guthrie, J. F., Fox, J. J., Lutz, S. M., Keane, T. P., & Basiotis, P. P. (1995). Differences in the dietary quality of adults living in single versus multi-person households. Journal of Nutrition Education, 27(3), 113–119. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub Co. Gough, B. (2007). ‘Real men don’t diet’: An analysis of contemporary newspaper representations of men, food and health. Social Science & Medicine, 64(2), 326–337. Gough, B., & Conner, M. T. (2006). Barriers to healthy eating amongst men: A qualitative analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 62(2), 387–395. Herod, A. (1993). Gender issues in the use of interviewing as a research method. Professional Geographer, 45(3), 305–317. Hoare, J., Henderson, L., Bates, C. J., Prentice, A., Birch, M., Swan, G., et al. (2004). The national diet & nutrition survey: Adults aged 19 to 64 years.

127

Summary report. London: Office for National Statistics and Medical Research Council Human Nutrition Research. Hollows, J. (2003). Oliver’s twist: Leisure, labour and domestic masculinity in the naked chef. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 6(2), 229–248. Inness, S. A. (2001). Dinner roles. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. Jabs, J., & Devine, C. M. (2006). Time scarcity and food choices: An overview. Appetite, 47(2), 196–204. Jensen, K. O., & Holm, L. (1999). Preferences, quantities and concerns: Sociocultural perspectives on the gendered consumption of foods. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 53(5), 351–359. Kemmer, D., Anderson, A. S., & Marshall, D. W. (1998). Living together and eating together: Changes in food choice and eating habits during the transition from single to married/cohabiting. Sociological Review, 46(1), 48–72. Lake, A. A., Hyland, R. M., Mathers, J. C., Rugg-Gunn, A. J., Wood, C. E., & Adamson, A. J. (2006). Food shopping and preparation among the 30somethings: Whose job is it? (the ASH30 study). British Food Journal, 108(6), 475–486. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. In D. D. Williams (Ed.), Naturalistic evaluation: New directions for program evaluation, no. 30 (pp. 73–84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lupton, D. (1996). Food, the body, and the self. London/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lupton, D. (2000). ‘Where’s me dinner?’ Food preparation arrangements in rural Australian families. Journal of Sociology, 36(2), 172–186. Manderson, L., Bennett, E., & Andajani-Sutjahjo, S. (2006). The social dynamics of the interview: Age, class and gender. Qualitative Health Research, 16(10), 1317–1334. Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Moshfegh, A., Goldman, J., & Cleveland, L. (2005). What we eat in America. NAHNES 2001–2002: Usual nutrient intakes from food compared to dietary reference intakes. US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service. Muhr, T. (1997). Atlas.ti 4.1 for Windows 95. Thousand Oaks, CA: SCOLARI, Sage Publications Software. National Agency for Enterprise and Housing. (2004). Housing statistics in the European union 2003. Denmark: Copenhagen. Raine, K. D. (2005). Determinants of healthy eating in Canada: An overview and synthesis. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 96, S8. Ristovski-Slijepcevic, S., Chapman, G. E., & Beagan, B. L. (2008). Engaging with healthy eating discourse(s): Ways of knowing about food and health in three ethnocultural groups in Canada. Appetite, 50(1), 167–178. Roos, G., Prattala, R., & Koski, K. (2001). Men, masculinity and food: Interviews with Finnish carpenters and engineers. Appetite, 37(1), 47– 56. Roos, G., & Wandel, M. (2005). ‘‘I eat because I’m hungry, because it’s good, and to become full’’: Everyday eating voiced by male carpenters, drivers, and engineers in contemporary Oslo. Food & Foodways, 13(1–2), 169– 180. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Sobal, J. (2005). Men, meat, marriage: Models of masculinity. Food & Foodways, 13(1–2), 135–158. Sobal, J., Bove, C. F., & Rauschenbach, B. S. (2002). Commensal careers at entry into marriage: Establishing commensal units and managing commensal circles. Sociological Review, 50(3), 378–397. Sobal, J., & Nelson, M. K. (2003). Commensal eating patterns: A community study. Appetite, 41(2), 181–190. Statistics Canada. (2002a). Profile of Canadian families and households: Diversification continues No. Catalogue no. 96F0030XIE2001003. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Retrieved April 13, 2007.

128

K. Sellaeg, G.E. Chapman / Appetite 51 (2008) 120–128

Statistics Canada. (2002b). Household living arrangements (10), age groups (17A) and sex (3) for population in private households, for Canada, provinces, territories, census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations, 2001 Census 20% sample data. Cat. no. 95F0315XCB01004. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada. (2003). Household spending on food, 2001. The Daily, Catalogue no 11-001-XIE, 3-5.

Sullivan, O. (2000). The division of domestic labour: Twenty years of change? Sociology-the Journal of the British Sociological Association, 34(3), 437– 456. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Households and families: 2000. Wetter, A. C., Goldberg, J. P., King, A. C., Sigman-Grant, M., Baer, R., Crayton, E., et al. (2001). How and why do individuals make food and physical activity choices? Nutrition Reviews, 59(3 Pt 2), S11–S20.