1
   

Did you know--Conservative men doubt their masculinity?

 
 
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 09:43 am
Did You Know?-Conservative Men Doubt their Masculinity?
Dr. Peter Breggin
08.20.2005

On August 19th the headline in my local newspaper the Ithaca Journal declared, "Threatened men more pro war, SUVs." The reporter asked the question, "What makes a macho man?" and then replied, "A simple threat to his masculinity could to the trick, according to Cornell University sociologist Robb Willer."

Doctoral candidate Willer used science to prove that male feelings of inferiority lead to Conservative political choices. He presented his findings this past week at the American Sociological Association meetings in Philadelphia.

Undergraduate students were first given a gender identity survey. They were then randomly told that they had a male or female identity. In the second phase of the study, the students were then asked a series of questions aimed at eliciting their political attitudes. The students "who were told arbitrarily that they had a feminine identity were more willing to buy a sports utility vehicle, showed more support the Iraq war and displayed more homophobic attitudes."

Basically he told these young male students that they weren't real guys and then watched them squirm. Not surprisingly, some of them compensated by voicing their support for conventional symbols of strength, power and maleness in our society. At least, that's what Robb says happened and it seems plausible.

You have to keep in mind that a Cornell researcher gave objective-looking tests to these young men. Based on this seemingly factual evidence, the students were told that their feminine identities had been exposed?-scientifically brought out of the closet. Is it any wonder that they became defensive and espoused seemingly male values?

I'm a psychiatrist and a researcher but it doesn't take any special expertise to anticipate these results. Just go up to any ten-year-old boy and tell him he's a sissy and he'll try to punch you out?-unless he is a sissy.

Let's imagine another experiment. Let's take another group of young college men and this time we'll make them feel that they are too masculine rather than too feminine. We'll tell them that they have "hyper-masculine identities," implying they should feel guilty about being men. How will they answer our questions about cars, war, and homosexuality? Out of guilt over their masculinity, some will explain that they look favorably upon small cars, anti-war sentiments, and homosexuality.

Certainly enough of them will react in this defensive way to give us that scientific dollar sign called statistical significance. Does this prove that Liberalism results from guilt over a masculine identity? HmmmÂ…
What Robb Willer has done is to pathologize both masculinity and Conservatism. Masquerading politics as science, he's made masculinity and Conservatism into diseases. This has been going on forever in the so-called social sciences. Decades ago a book called The Authoritarian Personality earned fame for its authors by linking patriotism and religion to mental disorder. At the time I was young and Liberal and of course I thought it was wonderful science. Now I'm old and Libertarian and it looks like a corruption of science to me.

The newspaper article about him says that Robb's next research will involve testing men for their testosterone levels by means of a convenient spit test. In the 1990s my wife Ginger and I successfully defeated a racist federal program that, among other things, was going to test the saliva of inner city children to link their violence to testosterone. White academics have long suspected that black men have more testosterone than they do. Ginger and I wrote about the racist research on black children in The War Against Children of Color. Now we've come full circle. We're going to test young white men to see if their excessive hormones drive their Conservative sentiments.

What are you going to do with your hormonal technology, Robb? Use the spit test to screen for potential terrorists at airports? No, that's what people concerned about terrorism might think of doing. Your professors will use low testosterone levels as a qualification for acceptance into graduate school in sociology. They've been doing this for years without benefit of an objective test.

Robb found that young women were not as distressed by being told that they had masculine identities. As for why the young women weren't as threatened about having their femininity undermined, look at the sample?-Cornell undergraduate women competing in that hothouse of pseudo-masculinity called academia, a world in which violence issues from the tongue rather than the fist.

Lest anyone doubt the liberal bias of both the press and academia, try to imagine Robb getting anywhere by conducting the alternative study that I have suggested?-one showing that a young man who's made to feel guilty about his masculinity will adopt more Liberal politics.

Perhaps there is a formula: If you feel guilty about your masculine side, you tend to become a Liberal; if you feel ashamed of your feminine side, you tend to become a Conservative. And if you have no interest in your gender identity, you become a Libertarian?-or stay out of politics? Perhaps the chicken and the egg are reversed: If you're Liberal, you learn to feel guilty about many of your masculine traits and if you're Conservative you learn to feel embarrassed about your feminine traits. Myself, I think it's very complicated and the subject of a book rather than a blog.

And what about torturing young Cornell students by telling them they have a feminine identity? Robb Willer should publish the consent form for his research. Does he warn the boys of Cornell in advance that as a part of the research project they will be lied to, deceived, manipulated, and ultimately humiliated at the core of their sense of self?

Gender identity is among the most vulnerable points in young men and women. Did Robb Willer consider the potentially disastrous psychological effects of threatening a college student's identity in the interest of promoting his own political ideology? Cornell is a hyper-competitive environment that's already infamous for having students throw themselves into its deep gorges.

Robb, did you eventually tell these humiliated young men, "We were only kidding"? You lied to them the first time. Why would they believe you the second time?

Shame on researchers who use fake science to foster their political agendas and personal careers at the expense of legitimate science and the emotional health of young students. Shame on sociology for so often feeding us politics as science. Shame on Cornell and its Department of Sociology for permitting it. Successful Cornell alumni, especially those with lots of testosterone, should rise up and call for an investigation.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,257 • Replies: 108
No top replies

 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Aug, 2005 08:37 am
Birds of a feather flock together, yet opposites attract. Sure it's common wisdom that a young man is apt to accentuate traditionally masculine traits when his sexual identity is threatened. Unless the study had shown the opposite. Shrinks, like Breggin, seek to label human behavior as pathological or normal; sociologists try to understand why the world is the way it is. Breggin, a psychiatrist, criticizes Willer for using a research technique that is most commonly used by psychologists and psychiatrists and has been the basis for most of our current understanding of human psychology, i.e., concealing the true nature of a study from participants to prevent biased responses. This happens all the time and, indeed, it's a necessary part of research. When new drugs are tested, some participants receive the actual drug and some receive a placebo; how useful would such a study be if particapants were told which they had received as the study was being conducted?

Willer's research has important implications for understanding why so many working class and poor men vote Republican when doing so is against their own interest; given the decreasing value of wages, the outsourcing of previously good-paying blue collar jobs, and mounting debts it is becoming increasing difficult for these men to live up to the traditional masculine concept of 'man as bread-winner'.

Unfortunately, Breggin provides few details to aid the reader in assessing either the merits of the study or Breggin's critique of it. In order for Willer to have supported the hypothesis that male insecurity leads to conservative political choices, he would have had to have, at the very least, a controll group that that responded to same political choice instrument as the 'inferiority' group without having been exposed to any instrument regarding their sexual identity. That's sufficient for the purposes of demonstrating the presence or absence of a statistical relationship between these two variables. Whether liberal political choices are linked to feeling too masculine or sufficiently masculine is irrelevant.

Willer isn't labeling anything abnormal or pathological, or, at least, Breggin provides no evidence that this is the case. Perhaps Breggin should actually read the study rather than base his tirade on an article written by a layman.

BTW: birds of a feather generally do flock together whereas opposites don't tend to attract, and usually not for long when they do. People tend to seek out those with whom they share the most in common for friends and mates. (This is an example of the problem with 'common wisdom' frequently cited in psych. 101 textbooks--at least, I've seen it in three different intro. to psych. textbooks.)
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Aug, 2005 10:37 am
Mills75
Mills75, excellent analytical comments.

I've been trying to persuade a dear friend, who is a clinical psychologist with a zillion degrees to join A2K. I've used this tread to entice her.

She also has a hobby of stand up comedy. She is a hoot even if she is a shrink. In fact, she has scheduled a class this fall re "The Healing Power of Humor." Her husband is a retired minister. He will knock your socks off with his impersonation of George Carlin in a comedy routine, "dirty" words and all.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Aug, 2005 11:15 am
as well they should BBB, as well they should.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Aug, 2005 06:18 pm
BBB
I just got an e-mail from my friend. She's going to join A2K.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Aug, 2005 10:56 pm
What utter nonsense.

Can there be anything more primitive and tribal than one group questioning the masculinity of the other?

What is most interesting is that this tripe was offered by a woman. What is the corollary BBB? Conservative women are all dykes?

(Of course this is ridiculous because we all know that Liberal men are all Fags and Liberal women are all Lezbos!)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2005 06:54 am
Oh, I think it's pretty accurate.

Noone is 'questioning the masculinity' of the Conservatives. That's the really funny part about your post, Finn. It's the conservatives that go to great lengths to assert their masculinity; as if there was a question about it.

And, I'm a Liberal, and I'm not a fag. But I'm not insulted by you implying that I am, because, unlike Conservatives, there is zero doubt in my mind that I wouldn't suck a d*ck placed in front of me. So the insult misses, completely. Save the implications of gayness for your fellow Conservatives, you will find much better targets there, I guarantee ya.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2005 08:59 am
I was talking to a Green Party candidate for Congress yesterday and we talked about this very thing. She and I agreed that it is the right-wing mostly white male who are the most vocal in their opposition to women's rights, gay rights, gun control (man is there an obvious connection there) peace, Cindy Sheehan et al.

Really, with or without a study to back it up, it is obvious to me what the motivation for having these intolerant, controlling views is.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2005 09:01 am
Conservative women have a problem with self-esteem and parrot the views of the men to whom they submit.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2005 10:09 am
It's sad to see that political thought has turned into schoolyard insults and attacking peoples self-images.


I'd be laughing if it wasn't so pathetic.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2005 11:14 am
Not every conservative is maladjusted, and not every liberal is cool. And not every SUV driver is a conservative.

Having said that, my sister, who consistently votes for Republicans, insists on driving an SUV because she's, in her own words, "petite."

I draw no conclusions...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2005 11:17 am
Quote:
It's sad to see that political thought has turned into schoolyard insults and attacking peoples self-images.


I'd be laughing if it wasn't so pathetic.


Lol, you still can't see it? Noone is 'attacking' people's self-images but themselves. Overcompensation in an effort to 'prove' their masculinity. It isn't as if this is a new idea.

Read the article again.

Cycloptichorn

ps cheers, haven't seen ya in a while; and that's a nice new avatar ya got!
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2005 11:38 am
This whole thread was designed to attack people. Just another "We're better than you" and this is why topic. Just more double-speak of "we need to heal the country" and then pull your hand away as your about to shake hands.

I stand by my statement that it is pathetic.

Quote:
ps cheers, haven't seen ya in a while; and that's a nice new avatar ya got!


Thanks. I've been around... just doing more reading than writing in here. I figured the new digs would help convey my feelings of late :wink:
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 10:39 pm
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
This whole thread was designed to attack people. Just another "We're better than you" and this is why topic. Just more double-speak of "we need to heal the country" and then pull your hand away as your about to shake hands.

I stand by my statement that it is pathetic.

Quote:
ps cheers, haven't seen ya in a while; and that's a nice new avatar ya got!


Thanks. I've been around... just doing more reading than writing in here. I figured the new digs would help convey my feelings of late :wink:


It is.

Some dip sh*t opines about the masculine self-image of conservatives and each and every dic*wad jumps on the diaphanous bandwagon.

Tribal...to the extreme.

What I always find ironic is the readiness of self-professed Lefties to challenge the sexual identity of their opponents.

Browse A2K and you will find enumerable homophobic references made by "Lefties." How can this be? "Lefties" are sexually enlightened and would never succumb to base sexual insults associated with same-sex oral gratification.

Hypocrisy and self-righteousness are the answers.

Liberals, most foul and counter-productive.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 11:28 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
This whole thread was designed to attack people. Just another "We're better than you" and this is why topic. Just more double-speak of "we need to heal the country" and then pull your hand away as your about to shake hands.

I stand by my statement that it is pathetic.

Quote:
ps cheers, haven't seen ya in a while; and that's a nice new avatar ya got!


Thanks. I've been around... just doing more reading than writing in here. I figured the new digs would help convey my feelings of late :wink:


It is.

Some dip sh*t opines about the masculine self-image of conservatives and each and every dic*wad jumps on the diaphanous bandwagon.

Tribal...to the extreme.

What I always find ironic is the readiness of self-professed Lefties to challenge the sexual identity of their opponents.

Browse A2K and you will find enumerable homophobic references made by "Lefties." How can this be? "Lefties" are sexually enlightened and would never succumb to base sexual insults associated with same-sex oral gratification.

Hypocrisy and self-righteousness are the answers.

Liberals, most foul and counter-productive.


Lets see a professor does a study and lies to the students about the out come and then a laugh when they try to prove it is wrong.

Boys who were raised to be men are called sissies and they try and prove the name caller wrong.

Boys who were raised to be other then men are called sissies are they don't have a problem with it.

It makes sense when you have an educator playing mind games with people. To think people are paying to get an education from this person.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 11:37 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
This whole thread was designed to attack people. Just another "We're better than you" and this is why topic. Just more double-speak of "we need to heal the country" and then pull your hand away as your about to shake hands.

I stand by my statement that it is pathetic.

Quote:
ps cheers, haven't seen ya in a while; and that's a nice new avatar ya got!


Thanks. I've been around... just doing more reading than writing in here. I figured the new digs would help convey my feelings of late :wink:


Homo is homo.

Hetero is hetero.

Cross the line and reveal oneself as a depraved hedonist.

Whereas, Love between "mates" are capable of fending off sex stimuli because love is all around, and it is deep and forsaken.

It is.

Some dip sh*t opines about the masculine self-image of conservatives and each and every dic*wad jumps on the diaphanous bandwagon.

Tribal...to the extreme.

What I always find ironic is the readiness of self-professed Lefties to challenge the sexual identity of their opponents.

Browse A2K and you will find enumerable homophobic references made by "Lefties." How can this be? "Lefties" are sexually enlightened and would never succumb to base sexual insults associated with same-sex oral gratification.

Hypocrisy and self-righteousness are the answers.

Liberals, most foul and counter-productive.


Lets see a professor does a study and lies to the students about the out come and then a laugh when they try to prove it is wrong.

Boys who were raised to be men are called sissies and they try and prove the name caller wrong.

Boys who were raised to be other then men are called sissies are they don't have a problem with it.

It makes sense when you have an educator playing mind games with people. To think people are paying to get an education from this person.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2005 12:04 am
A'ha! I knew it. A bunch of scared little girls. Laughing
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2005 08:23 am
Wow... that was real clever, Amigo.

Are you ever going to actually offer an opinion or just continue parroting other peoples thoughts?
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2005 02:41 pm
jpinMilwaukee, I have been a political activist for 17 years. I discuss and argue with professors and students (political,military). After 17 years I've become selective. I've read all your post on this thread. I agree with you. Yes, I have an opinion. At the moment, as you can see here, I am not motivated to express it.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Aug, 2005 04:39 pm
Lol! Have any of you picked up that the author of BBB's little piece thinks the "research" is a piece of ****, too?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Did you know--Conservative men doubt their masculinity?
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/05/2026 at 08:22:34