Reply
Sat 20 Aug, 2005 09:43 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.)
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
as well they should BBB, as well they should.
BBB
I just got an e-mail from my friend. She's going to join A2K.
BBB
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!)
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
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.
Conservative women have a problem with self-esteem and parrot the views of the men to whom they submit.
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.
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...
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!
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:
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.
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.
A'ha! I knew it. A bunch of scared little girls.
Wow... that was real clever, Amigo.
Are you ever going to actually offer an opinion or just continue parroting other peoples thoughts?
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.
Lol! Have any of you picked up that the author of BBB's little piece thinks the "research" is a piece of ****, too?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace