Most liberals are very non-masculine in nature. They have been trained to see masculinity as a problem, and that they need to cater to the women in all things, and do as requested.
By flipping things upside down, you create a man who is not just feminine, but has a tendency to be so unstable in their emotional life, that many will go to things like drugs, alcohol, or in some cases suicide. A lot of them will die young, because they see no purpose for their life.
If you wish to have good men, then teach them how to be men; make them masculine; make sure that they are trained to be men whom a good woman will desire because they are stable, and have the ability as a man to give the woman security, a home, and true life long friendship.
Also make sure to train a woman to be the type of woman, that a good man will desire! She is not one to be walked over; she is strong, she is one who knows how to take care of her home in all its aspects; she is business minded, and knows how to help her husband to succeed in his endeavors; knowing that he will reward her greatly, because of his love for the woman, who is his right hand, his other brain, then one who keeps him sane, and on the right path.
Masculinity needs to be brought back, so a man and woman can work together side by side as it was intended. Each using what specialized abilities they have to create a successful home, full of joy.
I guess it's because sometimes liberalists seem to be rebellious. Not always. But I guess some do that as their way of doing the opposite of what Society tells them gender should be, which is to be or act feminine.
They are more developed to try and be PC like, but ultimately trying to get laid. The feminine movement is to emasculate men and to control them. I like strong women, but I have my boundries on being emasculated. I am a mix of liberal and conservative, there is a need to look out for the wealthfare of the average person. I also think that people need to take responsibility for themselves, the system is not designed to tax the people to poverty and make no one have a better life. This forum to too short for politics.
I'd be interested to know if there's a study linking speed and agility to being more conservative or liberal. I suspect there is.
Amongst people in general, I have noticed a *definite* correlation between success in life and being liberal or conservative. Mind you, this is far from scientific, but I've noticed among my friends and acquaintances that the less successful in life, and the more poor life decisions they've made, the more liberal they become.
I just joined a gym. I wonder if I'll get more conservative! 😉
That liberal/conservative, democratic/republican nonsense makes less sense every single day.
The liberal Patrick Stewart at 81 with his wife. Is it liberal or conservative to have a wife who is 40 years younger? Sufficed to say, I just hope the Lord lets me look half as good at that age. Man!!!
And you already know about James Woods, right? The funny thing is in this photo, he is only 66.
okcupid (dating site) published a study on political views and they found out that political views change with age: most young people start as liberal and later end up conservative. The explanation is that in the begining of your life you have nothing, your power perimeter is short, you do not care about the society as a whole, thus you fight for your individual rights and liberties etc; and later in life your influence expands, and your task is to protect your gained status quo. So perhaps it's a maturity thing. In addition softer persons probably never get agressive/competitive enough to get high carrier, so they stay fighting for their individual rights and freedoms, rely on social services and so on.
Makes sense: they have to protect the company positions. On the other hand, the largest corporations pretend to be liberal and (ab) use the disruptive forces to expand their influence.
I think because those on the left tend to push a more feminist emphasized agenda. And unfortunately many feminists these days view natural masculinity as a threat. So they tone down their own masculinity in order to be accepted by those in their camp.
Obviously this does not apply to all liberals, because I know many masculine ones personally. But as an average nationally? It seems to be the case.
Because none of the following is associated with being manly or masculinity:
1. Being passionate about women’s issues. 2. Putting your hair in a man bun. 3. Being terrified of guns. 4. Masturbating to gay porn. 5. Eating tofu or being a vegetarian. 6. Shedding tears over climate change. 7. Driving a Toyota Prius. 8. Wanting the U. S. to become communist. 9. Being 32 years old, and living in your mothers basement where you often play D&D with the friends you made at the gay pride rally 2 years ago. 10. Wearing your mother’s panties.
I think it is a lot more simple, than that! They have NO BACKBONE, and just do whatever the Liberal woman that holds their leash tells them. Sadly, SOOOOOO many are in the House, and Senate, and making FCKED UP LAWS!!
@WowwGirl LOL!! NOT YOU!!! :) :) I said "PELOSI" is the Wicked Witch!! Many of your posts, have made me smile, so how could you possibly be a "Witch" dear Lady?
@WowwGirl Sorry, with the Sunglasses, on your Icon, I can't see that "sarcasm" eye look!! LOL! :) :) If you are any kind of "witch" I would guess the cute, sexy one, at the College Halloween party!! LOL!!
Left-liberalism (Social Liberalism): Individuals in this quadrant seek to uphold individual liberty while taxing the market to provide social benefits for those in need. They tend to see themselves as seeking balance between individual liberty and social justice, and to be in favor of multiculturalism, secular government, and international cooperation. While they are typically skeptical of state involvement in social affairs, they nevertheless see a legitimate role for the state in combating discrimination and ensuring equal treatment.
Either due to them being more willing to question tradition (I am) or due to feminism and its teachings on "toxic masculinity"(I don't condone this).
Being willing to question tradition and refusing to confirm to gender roles? That I got no problem with. My problem is when people shame men and women who do.
Because they reject the idea of traditional masculinity for one reason or the other, some might feel like they could never achieve that ideal or refuse to work for it. Others just throw away all masculinity in favor of some kind of artificial and exaggerated, cartoonish femininity.
Well multiple studies have shown that liberals are more intelligent and are higher educated. So my guess would be that they would have jobs, that didn't require physical strengt. I mean you wouldn't be surprised to find out that lumberjacks are in general physically stronger than lawyers would you?
Week: No inner strength, easily lead, no boundaries. Doesn’t use the word no, no self discipline or self control, emotionally lead, lacks objectivity, gets handled by business instead of handling business, is a quitter, can’t man up when the going gets tough and formulate and execute a plan, can’t lead, requires the opinions of others to make decisions and bases self esteem and self image on what others think instead of being the captain of their ship and worrying more about what they think of themselves, no confidence, physically weak as well, 0 self reliance, requires someone to hold their hand to get through life, requires a safe space because the world is just too harsh. You know. The type of guy who cries alone in the bed at night while masturbating to pictures of the girl who just cheated on them 2 days ago instead of dusting themselves off and carrying on with life.
An decent overall example would be Peter from The Hunger Games. Pretty much a giant puss whom no one can respect.
I thought studies showed liberals are more intelligent. How can that be when you don’t even understand what she means by weak and the concepts that would entail?
Your grandpa was right. Only fickle people who lack convictions and a backbone sway. Strong people are like Oak trees. Can’t be easily chopped down or uprooted.
Well it could be a predisposition, or it could be because they where brainwashed into being less masculine that they started to become less masculine over all because they did less things that generate testosterone and masculine inclinations.
Thats kind of what I answered. Either they where always feminine and gravitated towards leftism because it didn't hold them to a traditional masculine role that they couldn't meet OR because they where trained from such a young age to reject masculinity and be dependent and weak, they became exactly that.
Its all in the estrogen in their foods. Liberal leftist men are more likely to be vegan, More likely to be incredibly low T. They actually tested this at VICE. They tested their male writing staff and found out that they all suffered from low T.
The more normal a man is with his hormones, the less liberal he is. The less left leaning he is.
No. They are more tuned into their feminine side (or, more accurately, they want girls to think they’re more tuned into their feminine side). This can be both good and bad.
Yeah, that'd be my guess. People usually learn to conform to whatever their social circle finds to be "proper behavior", even if it seems ridiculous to outsiders.
It might be hormonal. Higher testosterone makes men traditionally speaking more "manly" but doesn't lend itself to intellectual pursuits or flexibility of thought.
Hahaha! Femininity and effeminacy lean towards social welfare causes whereas masculinity leans towards contest, development, and things that go boom - fun adrenaline stuff.
I like your comments most of the time WowwGirl, but I consider myself a liberal and am registered as a Democrat, and I really don't feel like a weakling.
Those highly intelligent tend to be more liberal since they can self-moderste. Yet females, especially the dumb ones, prefer dictatorship/autocracy, assuming it is an indicator of strength not an indicator of deficiencies concealed
I'm liberal but I'm very sporty as well. I'd argue I'd take on 90% of people who claim they are non liberal and come out on top... having a heart doesn't mean a person is physically weak.
i just don't care anymore about how society views a traditional man. i am my own human being and don't care how i seem like. man/feminine whatever. just accept me or you don't
Apparently being delusional and lacking in self awareness is a leftist trait. As much as politics on all sides, I have never seen a more hateful group than modern day leftists. I am mostly quiet about my beliefs since they enrage true believers on both sides, but leftists (they aren't liberals) tell me some of the most hateful garbage about conservatives while simultaneously telling me how intolerant the other side is supposed to be.
There are nutcases on the right, but the large majority of them just want to be left alone. This is why cancel culture is almost exclusively a left thing.
Exactly correct, you are all a bunch of cowards and would not dare say anything unless you have an entire group of you little cowards and a mask to hide behind. So exactly correct ANTIFA is a bunch of liberal, fascist cowards. Just like the NAZI brown shirts.
False I terrified an entire mob of BLM pu$$ies and almost ripped ones leg of and then uploaded a YouTube video of my trash taking them. I see you, soyboy.
You understand that I'm right and your update is proof. I'm shredded, a genius and my cock is as big around as the average is long. Know your place, doll. [Recites 15 jokes while dancing for you]
No, there's nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian or whatever. It's not MY lifestyle, and as long as I'm not approached by one that IS gay, in a sexually suggestive manner, I'm good.
Well @WowwGirl I guess you proved your point by backing up your statements with political articles... now I'm speaking for myself, some may have a different opinion because they may read them ( I did not) but I digress.. that to me mean nothing. But if you believe that a group of men are or seem like less than manly based on thier political affiliation, that is your God given right. Just as it's mine to respectfully say "SERIOUSLY"? 🤨
You are making the case, so the onus is on you to present the evidence for review by those you wish to convince. This is how arguments and persuasion happen in the real world - for instance, in law and in peer-reviewed journals which advance knowledge in all fields throughout the world.
So, in this assertion of yous, it is incumbent upon you to provide the evidence. I am not saying that it is false, but that you need to provide the evidence yourself of these "multiple studies". And, I want to be clear why: If you want someone to understand what you are trying to say, then you need to make them see it through your perspective - "your eyes", so to speak. If I "Google it", I may find all sorts of evidence rejecting your assertion. So, if you want me to believe your assertion, then I need to see EXACTLY what you saw that convinced you to make that assertion. Then, using intellectual rigor, I will either agree with your assertion and posit an answer to your original question or I will reject your assertion and offer an explanation why I reject it.
Yes. Sure. The world you live in got to the advanced state where it is because of systematic skepticism and logical rigor. Saying something is true doesn't make it true. Proving something is true does.
OK, you provided good stuff, but most of it is suspect... but that doesn't make it wrong. You have newspaper articles and some other website articles... these are a good FIRST START...
To do proper "due diligence", you then ask yourself two questions: 1. "What bias may they have?" 2. "Where did they get their information? They have sources, don't they?". You then find out the answer to these questions... And you keep going until you find the original source.
Let's try one. One source you listed in the update is Medical Daily. Let's take a look at them... Medical Daily has an About page which has this: "As already alluded to, Medical Daily only sources websites that do not have vested interests in its content." That's a good sign but not good enough. What's their reputation? Go to several sources for that... One is MediaBiasFactCheck who writes: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/medical-daily/ "Overall, we rate Medical Daily a strong pseudoscience source based on the publication of unproven or misleading medical and health claims." We should check some others, but that's not a good sign.
"Source: Peterson MB, Sznycer D, Sell A, et al. The ancestral logic of politics: Upper-body strength regulates men's assertion of self-interest over economic redistribution. Psychological Science. 2013."
So, that's where the money is. We look at that and the journal it's published in.
The journal is "Psychological Science". First things we ask are "Is it peer-reviewed?" and "Who publishes it?" It's published by the Association for Psychological Science. That's a real legitimate scientific organization and the journal is peer-reviewed. This means that its articles are considered legitimate science. ... but that doesn't mean the science is perfect and it can be flawed. Even the peer-review process can be faulty. Lots of scientists squabble with each other in journals like bitchy high school teens having a texting fight. Ideally, we'd look at the article itself, but that may not be possible and the lay person may have a difficult time understanding a scientific article.
Meanwhile, all your other news sources all report the same study, so we really only have ONE source. That's important that you understand that because what you wrote: "Is it because multiple studies have shown they are usually physically weaker" is false because we have only ONE study, not MULTIPLE.
But that's minor. Still, I want to point that out because many people / media sites will sensationalize things with a little bit of numerical embellishment. In this case, it's a classic - lots of media all report the same thing; it's not independent things. If 10 people see a UFO and each files a report, it's just 10 reports about 1 UFO, not 10 reports about 10 distinct UFOs. I'll cut you slack because a lot of people do this.
OK, back to the study... Let's see if we can find it...
Here it is: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797612466415 It costs $35 to get access to the full article. I'd suggest going to a STEM university library and reading it there for free. Anyway, here it is with Abstract...
JOURNAL: Psychological Science TITLE: The Ancestral Logic of Politics: Upper-Body Strength Regulates Men’s Assertion of Self-Interest Over Economic Redistribution
Article Information Volume: 24 issue: 7, page (s): 1098-1103 Article first published online: May 13, 2013; Issue published: July 1, 2013 Michael Bang Petersen 1, Daniel Sznycer 2, Aaron Sell 2, 3, Leda Cosmides 2, John Tooby 2 1 Department of Political Science & Government, Aarhus University 2 Center for Evolutionary Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara 3 School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University
Corresponding Author: Michael Bang Petersen, Aarhus University, Political Science, Universitetsparken Building 1331, Aarhus DK-8000, Denmark E-mail: michael@ps. au. dk
Abstract Over human evolutionary history, upper-body strength has been a major component of fighting ability. Evolutionary models of animal conflict predict that actors with greater fighting ability will more actively attempt to acquire or defend resources than less formidable contestants will. Here, we applied these models to political decision making about redistribution of income and wealth among modern humans. In studies conducted in Argentina, Denmark, and the United States, men with greater upper-body strength more strongly endorsed the self-beneficial position: Among men of lower socioeconomic status (SES), strength predicted increased support for redistribution; among men of higher SES, strength predicted increased opposition to redistribution. Because personal upper-body strength is irrelevant to payoffs from economic policies in modern mass democracies, the continuing role of strength suggests that modern political decision making is shaped by an evolved psychology designed for small-scale groups.
OK, so the above abstract is important. This has only very little to do with your original question. As in most science or legal documents, the scope is very narrow. What is being asserted in this work is that physically stronger men have more selfish tendencies than less stronger men.
(The more selfish tendencies are a trait of Conservatives more so than Liberals. There are plenty of selfish women, so unselfishness does not make a man more feminine.)
That said, there likely is something to this study and I don't disagree with it. Furthermore, I think the way you worded your question was wrong, but the intent is understood.
In short, I think this is easy to understand from an evolutionary perspective.
> The larger / physically stronger you are, the more successful you can execute your selfish desires (which we all have) and thus you will have less empathy because empathy comes from suffering.
> Contrast that with smaller / less stronger males who are less successful in fulfilling selfish desires so they will have more empathy for potential failure because "they've been there".
> Meanwhile, females generally are more interested in the survival of the group than males are who are more interested in their own survival, thus females are generally more empathetic. In fact, since females are the architects of the evolution of our species, humans have gotten more empathetic over time which is why we now have social systems and have conquered this planet despite not being the most physically dominant.
So, it is the increased empathy that smaller males generally have that makes them seem "more feminine". But, let's be clear: They are not feminine - they just exhibit a trait that is more characteristic of females than hypermasculine males... and, yes, Liberal men are more empathetic but in no way does that make them effeminate. Liberal men invented nuclear weapons and used them.
I seem to at a loss for words to describe my reaction to your query at the present time. If I manage to formulate a proper reply in a timely manner, I shall do so.🤞
Aww, come on, I just finally picked myself up off of the floor from earlier, now I'm ROTFL again. Or am I wrong? Was that a comedically sarcastic "Take your time", or just a normal "Take your time"? I swear, I'm losin' my everlovin' mind! I think I'm gonna need a lot more time. In a straightjacket, heavily medicated. You get the picture. You do, don't you?
(Camera 1 zooms from Earth shot from space down to a small jungle clearing) : nolabels calmly waits in the shadows, watching as WowwGirl confidently applies fresh bait to her trap's trigger mechanism.
(Voiceover - nolabels inner thoughts) - I believe there exists the very real possibility that there is a greater game in play here than merely the question of the origin of feminine, liberal men. To survive and thrive, yes, that's it, survive and thrive.
nolabels took note of the hidden safety mechanisms that WowwGirl engaged as she approached the trap, from downwind with the sun at her back, of course. She's a wily hunter, to be sure.
Are there additional safeties that will need to be secured, but which are outside of nolabels scope of knowledge, before the trap's bait may be safely removed and devoured by nolabels hungry jaws?
Will nolabels choose to attempt to steal the bait, or will the curtains close on this drama with a standoff between Crafty Hunter v. Cautious [Prey (?)]?
... Roll Credits...
(Off-camera announcer's voice): Tune in next week as the tension mounts in these remote jungles, home of the mysterious G@G tribe.
This week's episode of Hunter/Prey has been brought to you by the fine folks at Lux Laundry Automated Flakes. Just remember, folks, LLAF, for laundry so clean, you'll just have to LLAF.
Femininity is a prerequisite to qualify as being a liberal man. Exceptions are sometimes allowed, but there is a cost. That cost being the loss of their masculinity.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
00 Reply
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
14 Reply
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Most Helpful Opinions