Disappointing liberal article. Advertising did not make something from nothing; gender disparities in meat consumption are older than that. Check out The Sexual Politics of Meat, which answers this question in great detail. It's complicated, but basically:

1. Women are objectified, reduced to specific aspects of their flesh instead of considered as entire human beings. Tits or ass?
2. Animals are literally objectified; a neatly packaged grocery store steak has no relation to the once-living cow it was cut out of.
3. This "absent referent" allows cultural violence against a group without directly recognizing them. For instance, a number of restaurants have animal logos with (human) female secondary sex characteristics that attempt to seduce the patron into eating them. They may joke about chicken "breasts" or "racks" of ribs, etc. Women describe being treated "like a piece of meat"; boomer humor explicitly compares the bodies of women to those of animals to be consumed.
4. Participating in this process is manly, because a man is someone who dominates others by objectifying, fragmenting, and ultimately consuming them. Refusing to turn animals into flesh, instead recognizing them as moral entities, is linked to a refusal to objectify women, instead treating them as people; this makes you gay or a soyboy or whatever.

Please forgive my clunky explanation; I read the book last year. I highly recommend it: it's an easy read and chock-full of evidence.