"satisfies like meat"

i just came upon this article in today's nyt which, among other things, sports this phrase: "Alda Fuortes de Nitto...cooks eggplant that satisfies like meat." as i thought about that, i wonder what it is that meat means to us (us meat-a-tarians, that is), and how we view it. should eggplant satisfy like meat? why would you want to liken eggplant to meat, anyway? it's an entirely different thing - should it then be treated completely differently?

since i'm not vegetarian i can't say, but i wonder if they think of certain things as replacing meat - like the vaunted portobello mushroom cap, for example. i would hope that they don't - that it's just a different way to eat. the way that phrase is worded implies that meat is a necessary component of one's diet, or possibly the most important one, while it really isn't. or maybe it's trying to say that there are things in general that satisfy like meat, using the word "meat" to signify the important part of a meal. but is any one part of a meal "better" or more "significant" than the "meat"?

for me, meat has become an increasingly optional part of a meal. i certainly do like it - a lot - but it's no longer the mainstay of dinner. i suppose i think of meat more as a flavor now, rather than a necessity. sometimes i want it, sometimes i don't, and a lot of the time i'm too lazy to cook it or too cheap to buy it.