Testosterone Administration Induces a Red Shift in Democrats(pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Testosterone Administration Induces a Red Shift in Democrats
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12230349/
64 comments
Moreover, the republicans are reported as having lower T on average but the difference is not statistically significant.
It looks weird to me they don't report how age behaves across groups and don't correct for age in baseline comparisons.
It looks weird to me they don't report how age behaves across groups and don't correct for age in baseline comparisons.
"but the difference is not statistically significant."
So,... Republicans are reported as having basically the same T?
So,... Republicans are reported as having basically the same T?
Sometimes I wonder if microplastics are a bug or a feature for companies selling us food that contain them. Same with a lot of other products that mess up your hormones.
As far as I know, the science is settled when it comes to plastics, aerosols and hormones, so it does baffle me that this huge issue that affects us all is fringe and untouched while I see flags representing intersex people (am I evil for not particularly caring about this?) every day in the city.
Did they measure the IQ shift?
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1lbwkdh/...
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1lbwkdh/...
did some digging - that image is fake, but there is a study with that name. Doesn't contain that data though.
136 males? Fooled by randomness
Wow! This is going to be an Ig Nobel Prize winner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize
I would be interested to see the flip side. For weakly affiliated Republicans, what is the effect, if any? Obviously, 136 is a very small sample size, so I won't be updating one way or another based on this.
The fine article covers that. No effect for strongly or weakly affiliated republicans.
I bounced right over it as I was skimming. Thanks!
I’m wholly ignorant here, what would make for a respectable sample size?
Good rule of thumb, if I disagree with the study’s conclusion, it needs a larger sample size.
That's a tough question. There's no one "right" sample size. It depends on the size of the effect you're trying to measure, how much noise is in the data, whether or not you want to analyze subgroups within the data, and many other factors.
The sample size here, 136, is not bad at first glance, many studies get published with smaller ones. It's large enough for the purposes here, but you'd definitely want to replicate the experiment a few more times.
The sample size here, 136, is not bad at first glance, many studies get published with smaller ones. It's large enough for the purposes here, but you'd definitely want to replicate the experiment a few more times.
The rule of thumb is that signal-to-noise increases by the square root of the sample size. This is a brutal curve, and suggests that simply gathering more data is seldom practical.
Another rule that I use myself is, "multiply p by 10." In other words, a p-value of 0.05 is as good as a coin toss. This sounds outrageous, but seems consistent with reality.
Another rule that I use myself is, "multiply p by 10." In other words, a p-value of 0.05 is as good as a coin toss. This sounds outrageous, but seems consistent with reality.
Usually in polling they aim for about 2000 people to represent a country.
I thought this was surely a joke as it is a hilarious premise for a "scientific" paper
not much qualifies as statistically significant from a sample size of 136 men out of roughly 4 billion.
not much qualifies as statistically significant from a sample size of 136 men out of roughly 4 billion.
The validity of a sample size has nothing to do with the size of the set it's drawn from. 136 is a reasonable sample size, 25 is considered the minimum for a yes/no question.
sorry but what are talking about?
This is why so many studies are impossible to replicate.
The sample size has everything to do with the hypothesis here. There is no one size fits all meaningful sample size.
When you make a claim about "men" writ large you need enough data to establish significance and account for the multitude of other variables at play which are massive here.
This is why so many studies are impossible to replicate.
The sample size has everything to do with the hypothesis here. There is no one size fits all meaningful sample size.
When you make a claim about "men" writ large you need enough data to establish significance and account for the multitude of other variables at play which are massive here.
Hilarious and also a great example of how stupid peer review is.
The potential for trolling and general idiocy is high here, so I'll tread carefully. I think this is an uncomfortable truth that the Democratic party has yet to effectively internalize and address; and they will continue to struggle and frustrate themselves until they do. There is very little in current left-wing philosophy that provides any sort of meaningful place or role for masculinity as it is commonly understood. Then, when Democrats or other left wing political parties struggle to win over men, they resort to name calling and try to right off masculinity writ large, causally throwing around phrases like "toxic masculinity".
As much as it has gone out of fashion, the masculine and feminine are ever-present parts of the human psyche and human experience, which is why they can be found and understood across cultures, space, and time. Carl Jung and others who explore archetypes and symbols understood this well. You can't ignore a fundamental component of the human experience and expect your philosophy/worldview/politics succeed long term.
As much as it has gone out of fashion, the masculine and feminine are ever-present parts of the human psyche and human experience, which is why they can be found and understood across cultures, space, and time. Carl Jung and others who explore archetypes and symbols understood this well. You can't ignore a fundamental component of the human experience and expect your philosophy/worldview/politics succeed long term.
> I think this is an uncomfortable truth
What truth? A derivative tells you nothing about the absolute value of a function. Maybe the Democrats have a higher base T than Republicans, for all we know. And they just turn "red" when you overdose them on it, temporarily. You can probably find similar results with other substances.
What truth? A derivative tells you nothing about the absolute value of a function. Maybe the Democrats have a higher base T than Republicans, for all we know. And they just turn "red" when you overdose them on it, temporarily. You can probably find similar results with other substances.
I think you're conflating the Democratic Party with "left-wing philosophy." Actual left-wing ideology (Marx, Lenin, the socialist tradition) focuses on material conditions for workers: who owns the means of production, labor power, class relations.
From that perspective, the problem isn't that Democrats have the wrong messaging about masculinity. It's that neither major US party offers politics centered on workers' material interests. Both parties abandoned class-based politics in favor of cultural appeals.
If you're a young man struggling economically, being told you have "privilege" feels disconnected from your reality of declining wages and diminished prospects. But the socialist response isn't "better messaging about masculinity," it's organizing workers to gain power over their economic conditions.
From that perspective, the problem isn't that Democrats have the wrong messaging about masculinity. It's that neither major US party offers politics centered on workers' material interests. Both parties abandoned class-based politics in favor of cultural appeals.
If you're a young man struggling economically, being told you have "privilege" feels disconnected from your reality of declining wages and diminished prospects. But the socialist response isn't "better messaging about masculinity," it's organizing workers to gain power over their economic conditions.
To have even more fun with this, republicans were the original "left wing" while the right wing was composed of monarchists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_wing#History
> Throughout the 19th century, the main line dividing Left and Right was between supporters of the French republic and those of the monarchy's privileges.
It's fun to consider those same dividing lines in the current US climate: once again, it's the right wing that tries very hard to establish an absolute ruler, while the left aims to maintain the current republic (or to salvage what's left of it).
> Throughout the 19th century, the main line dividing Left and Right was between supporters of the French republic and those of the monarchy's privileges.
It's fun to consider those same dividing lines in the current US climate: once again, it's the right wing that tries very hard to establish an absolute ruler, while the left aims to maintain the current republic (or to salvage what's left of it).
Left wing philosophy did not start and end with Marx. Leftists who pretend 1900s era leftism is somehow the True Left are annoying. He was just one in a series of extremely far left thinkers.
Most people with a good historical education would point to the original leftists being the Jacobins. That's where we get the terms left and right from. But you could also argue that even Jesus Christ was a leftist by the standards of his day, and we just struggle to see it because politics as we know it now didn't exist back then. He wasn't a fan of capitalism! The Bible says he preached peace and then went in with some followers and beat up market traders for no better reason than he thought trade shouldn't be allowed around temples (or we can infer he didn't like markets and traders in general, but having cast himself as a religious figure he had no excuse to rail against it in non-religious places).
> Both parties abandoned class-based politics in favor of cultural appeals.
Yes they did because Marxist thought is wrong and destructive. It should have never been adopted at all but after lots of evidence in the 20th century most people did give it up. The notion of "class" is a poor description of reality. Marxism always had trouble classifying small business owners. They do manual physical labor, so should be working class, but they are also capitalists. He would have been baffled by the ramen eating startup grinders of today. Marxism has no way to properly incorporate this basic and common fact into its thinking. Or, he probably wouldn't be baffled really, because if you read a biography of him it's clear he hardly ever left his study and was uninterested in exploring the real world outside of books and newspapers. His friend Engels invited him to visit a factory Engles owned, and Marx refused, despite supposedly fighting for the factory workers.
Most people with a good historical education would point to the original leftists being the Jacobins. That's where we get the terms left and right from. But you could also argue that even Jesus Christ was a leftist by the standards of his day, and we just struggle to see it because politics as we know it now didn't exist back then. He wasn't a fan of capitalism! The Bible says he preached peace and then went in with some followers and beat up market traders for no better reason than he thought trade shouldn't be allowed around temples (or we can infer he didn't like markets and traders in general, but having cast himself as a religious figure he had no excuse to rail against it in non-religious places).
> Both parties abandoned class-based politics in favor of cultural appeals.
Yes they did because Marxist thought is wrong and destructive. It should have never been adopted at all but after lots of evidence in the 20th century most people did give it up. The notion of "class" is a poor description of reality. Marxism always had trouble classifying small business owners. They do manual physical labor, so should be working class, but they are also capitalists. He would have been baffled by the ramen eating startup grinders of today. Marxism has no way to properly incorporate this basic and common fact into its thinking. Or, he probably wouldn't be baffled really, because if you read a biography of him it's clear he hardly ever left his study and was uninterested in exploring the real world outside of books and newspapers. His friend Engels invited him to visit a factory Engles owned, and Marx refused, despite supposedly fighting for the factory workers.
> The notion of "class" is a poor description of reality. Marxism always had trouble classifying small business owners. They do manual physical labor, so should be working class, but they are also capitalists.
Not even in the least. There’s a lot to critique in Marx and Engels but there is much written about Marx’s theory of alienation. He would say “The best form of work is unalienated labor.”
A person working, developing and feeling connected to the fruits of their labor, fulfilling the needs of his society is exactly what he prescribed.
Not even in the least. There’s a lot to critique in Marx and Engels but there is much written about Marx’s theory of alienation. He would say “The best form of work is unalienated labor.”
A person working, developing and feeling connected to the fruits of their labor, fulfilling the needs of his society is exactly what he prescribed.
But "alienation" is a concept Marx made up and that only he used. Nobody talks about that today and you don't find talk of "alienation" even in very Marxist institutions like unions because it doesn't mean anything concrete.
> A person working, developing and feeling connected to the fruits of their labor, fulfilling the needs of his society is exactly what he prescribed.
So if a rich CEO feels connected to the fruits of his extensive labor, he's not a capitalist and should be left alone during the revolution of the proletariat then? Somehow none of the people who put communism into practice got that memo.
Yeah, sorry, trying to find any sense in Marxism is a waste of time. The man was a very poor thinker. People who view him as insightful tend to conflate quantity with quality. He wrote lots of books, therefore he must be smart and have something to contribute. The man's theories don't describe the real world correctly, let alone successfully predict what happens if people act on his advice. Not even if you allow him to invent his own non-existent emotions and states of being like alienation.
> A person working, developing and feeling connected to the fruits of their labor, fulfilling the needs of his society is exactly what he prescribed.
So if a rich CEO feels connected to the fruits of his extensive labor, he's not a capitalist and should be left alone during the revolution of the proletariat then? Somehow none of the people who put communism into practice got that memo.
Yeah, sorry, trying to find any sense in Marxism is a waste of time. The man was a very poor thinker. People who view him as insightful tend to conflate quantity with quality. He wrote lots of books, therefore he must be smart and have something to contribute. The man's theories don't describe the real world correctly, let alone successfully predict what happens if people act on his advice. Not even if you allow him to invent his own non-existent emotions and states of being like alienation.
I’m definitely not a Marx expert, but: No no no.
Marx being such an obscure figure with little impact on the course of modern history, it doesn’t surprise me that you never got a chance to read it, but alienation is definitely “talked about”, the critique of capitalism is part and parcel of Marx specifically, the material conditions of workers play HEAVILY into it. He didn’t just emerge from some cottage with this idea, he was observing the Industrial Revolution.
If the bourgeoisie CEO (capital owner?) feels connected to the fruit of his labor it makes a difference for their material conditions, but has no bearing on capitalist-or-not.
In an economics setting you’ll talk more about the labor theory of value and so forth, alienation of the aristocracy wasn’t the thrust of the work. Your example could maybe point at the idea of “golden handcuffs”, however the classic Yes Men prank on the WTO is more the reality ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK9Cs_UcTEE )
This is all of course a point of curiosity alone, since the rare encounters with Marx are restricted to philosophy, economics, history, political science, sociology and advanced psychology programs.
Marx being such an obscure figure with little impact on the course of modern history, it doesn’t surprise me that you never got a chance to read it, but alienation is definitely “talked about”, the critique of capitalism is part and parcel of Marx specifically, the material conditions of workers play HEAVILY into it. He didn’t just emerge from some cottage with this idea, he was observing the Industrial Revolution.
If the bourgeoisie CEO (capital owner?) feels connected to the fruit of his labor it makes a difference for their material conditions, but has no bearing on capitalist-or-not.
In an economics setting you’ll talk more about the labor theory of value and so forth, alienation of the aristocracy wasn’t the thrust of the work. Your example could maybe point at the idea of “golden handcuffs”, however the classic Yes Men prank on the WTO is more the reality ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK9Cs_UcTEE )
This is all of course a point of curiosity alone, since the rare encounters with Marx are restricted to philosophy, economics, history, political science, sociology and advanced psychology programs.
I think the idea of masculinity versus femininity, versus nothing, should be removed from politics. No one should be demonizing any of it, some people are masculine, some people are feminine, some people are in between or nothing at all or neither. I don't like to see The political universe demonizing what is really innate human behavior.
Yes indeed. When I was a young man I heard the now famous quote
"There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" by Pierre Trudeau. It was concerning the homosexuality debates in the politics of the 60s, but it always stuck with me as a generally good rule of thumb, do we really need to bring this stuff into politics? Who I pray to, who I sleep with, and what my T levels are, don't seem particularly germane. You put it eloquently, the political universe really does spend considerably too much energy demonizing what is really innate human behavior.
The research does not actually show "republican men have more testosterone than democratic men."
>Carl Jung and others who explore archetypes and symbols understands this well.
Anyone who dates and has sex understands this. Masculine energy attracts feminine energy. You don't need a PHD in it.
Anyone who dates and has sex understands this. Masculine energy attracts feminine energy. You don't need a PHD in it.
I guess even stags in rut "understand" this. But there are levels of understanding. Read something like The Origins and History of Consciousness by Erich Neumann and you might agree it reaches a deeper level.
You can't cite Jung and be expected to be taken seriously in 2025. Type "Animus and Anima" in Google and see how crackpot this all sounds and looks.
Republicans are stuck with their backwards views, and they shut their mind completely to concepts like "patriarchy", which elicits violent, automatic reactions from them. I am yet to see a single guy from the right correctly define what "patriarchy" means to the left, and understand that the leftist projects by no means intends to harm men as a group.
To the contrary, liberating men from having to conform to a specific ideal is extremely freeing. So is not being berated for their height, lack of big muscles or whatever it is one "lacks" compared to the model man.
Republicans are stuck with their backwards views, and they shut their mind completely to concepts like "patriarchy", which elicits violent, automatic reactions from them. I am yet to see a single guy from the right correctly define what "patriarchy" means to the left, and understand that the leftist projects by no means intends to harm men as a group.
To the contrary, liberating men from having to conform to a specific ideal is extremely freeing. So is not being berated for their height, lack of big muscles or whatever it is one "lacks" compared to the model man.
>I am yet to see a single guy from the right correctly define what "patriarchy" means to the left
What does patriarchy mean to the left?
What does patriarchy mean to the left?
Or small hands, perhaps?
> So is not being berated for their height, lack of big muscles or whatever it is one "lacks" compared to the model man.
Sounds like you haven't been in the dating pool for a few decades. Go on Tinder and look at what women put in their profiles. Claiming that leftism "liberated" men from being judged by conventional characteristics is delusional. Minimum height requirements are common. Many women also claim to have minimum income requirements.
This stuff has never gone away, of course it has not, why would it? The left never criticizes the behavior of women, only men.
> I am yet to see a single guy from the right correctly define what "patriarchy" means to the left, and understand that the leftist projects by no means intends to harm men as a group.
Your problem is that you're using a theoretical definition that doesn't match reality, and the right use a definition based on observed behavior, so you think they're wrong. But they're not wrong. The sort of people who talk about patriarchy always desire to hurt men as a group, and often do. Citing theory in response should get you laughed at.
Sounds like you haven't been in the dating pool for a few decades. Go on Tinder and look at what women put in their profiles. Claiming that leftism "liberated" men from being judged by conventional characteristics is delusional. Minimum height requirements are common. Many women also claim to have minimum income requirements.
This stuff has never gone away, of course it has not, why would it? The left never criticizes the behavior of women, only men.
> I am yet to see a single guy from the right correctly define what "patriarchy" means to the left, and understand that the leftist projects by no means intends to harm men as a group.
Your problem is that you're using a theoretical definition that doesn't match reality, and the right use a definition based on observed behavior, so you think they're wrong. But they're not wrong. The sort of people who talk about patriarchy always desire to hurt men as a group, and often do. Citing theory in response should get you laughed at.
Joe Biden embodied many of the classic aspects of masculinity I find valuable- love for his family, moral fortitude (specifically, the ability to do the right thing instead of the thing-that-looks-right, see the Afghanistan pullout or his early support for gay marriage), as well as the classics like physical fitness, style, propriety and getting things done. The people running the algorithms hate this, and so you're never going to see evidence that he was loved for his masculinity online, but there's a reason he won his primaries. Unfortunately, Biden just got old as shit, and no one came up behind him- Gavin Newsom is what, 1 for six on the criteria I brought up?
[deleted]
I thought Biden won the nomination by winning the vote of African-American women in the pivotal South Carolina primary, after a major endorsement by Representative Jim Clyburn.
I can't parse what I just wrote to decide how Biden's masculinity played into that result.
I can't parse what I just wrote to decide how Biden's masculinity played into that result.
[deleted]
Black pill movement is a scam, get over it.
Define what you are talking about if you want to put your stake in the ground so people can respond. What is masculinity as it is commonly understood?
I believe men should be willing to fight for the group. Republicans think it should be every individual for themselves. I believe in myself enough I don't need to surround myself with the same religion/race as me. Republicans are afraid they will be replaced. I believe men should be able to have sex, and that birth control should be legal so they can do that. Republicans don't believe that. I believe in hanging out with my bros. Republicans love to hang out with pretend bros by listening to podcasts.
I believe I should be self sufficient and shouldn't need a surrogate mother to take care of me. So I do my own laundry, I cook, I clean. Like a real grown adult human. I believe enough in myself enough I don't need to sequester my partner away from the world and keep them at home.
These are like THE defining masculine traits. Protect others. Secure in yourself around others. Having sex. Being engaging enough to hang out with. Be self sufficient. Confident enough of yourself not to be jealous/overprotective of your partner or need to keep them hidden away at home. Republicans have none of these.
I live in a red state. All the REAL men (forresters, park rangers) are dems. Now the short guy rolling coal in his ridiculous truck, sure, he's a republican. The cop wearing a bulletproof vest while on duty in my tiny mountain town, sure, he's a republican. I guess that's the masculinity the right talks about. The appearance of masculinity. Not ACTUAL, lived, legit masculinity.
I believe men should be willing to fight for the group. Republicans think it should be every individual for themselves. I believe in myself enough I don't need to surround myself with the same religion/race as me. Republicans are afraid they will be replaced. I believe men should be able to have sex, and that birth control should be legal so they can do that. Republicans don't believe that. I believe in hanging out with my bros. Republicans love to hang out with pretend bros by listening to podcasts.
I believe I should be self sufficient and shouldn't need a surrogate mother to take care of me. So I do my own laundry, I cook, I clean. Like a real grown adult human. I believe enough in myself enough I don't need to sequester my partner away from the world and keep them at home.
These are like THE defining masculine traits. Protect others. Secure in yourself around others. Having sex. Being engaging enough to hang out with. Be self sufficient. Confident enough of yourself not to be jealous/overprotective of your partner or need to keep them hidden away at home. Republicans have none of these.
I live in a red state. All the REAL men (forresters, park rangers) are dems. Now the short guy rolling coal in his ridiculous truck, sure, he's a republican. The cop wearing a bulletproof vest while on duty in my tiny mountain town, sure, he's a republican. I guess that's the masculinity the right talks about. The appearance of masculinity. Not ACTUAL, lived, legit masculinity.
> I believe men should be able to have sex
So why demonize men for wanting to have sex, with phrases like “men only want one thing”, “sexual objectification”, “entitled incel”, “thought rape”, etc.?
So why demonize men for wanting to have sex, with phrases like “men only want one thing”, “sexual objectification”, “entitled incel”, “thought rape”, etc.?
Just so you know, Dems, leftists, progressives or whatever group you identify as will do so much better at appealing to men as a demographic whenever you guys are able to talk about men as a demographic without taking advantage of all these random opportunities to needlessly shit on virgins and short men.
[deleted]
I am *not* a sociologist or a psychologist or anything in that realm, so I do NOT know the implications of what I'm saying or how much accuracy I have.
I think you're right that it's wrong to hate on boys (and the men they grow up to be) for wanting to mold themselves into society's current reflection of what a man is.
It's often said that the Left has a branding problem - and that a lot of the Left's stances are too cerebral for the sound-bite and gossip culture we have lived in since forever (and that has gotten more extreme in the world of micro-form content). I think that's correct.
I think there is much to be said about the Left doing a poor job right now of separating and giving strong examples of toxic and non-toxic masculinity - I do think the Left is getting way better at that now, with some very left-leaning men, who DEEPLY fit the Masculine Archetype starting to reveal themselves - there's a specific Afghanistan Vet running for office whose name escapes me that comes to mind; and also that one guy chopping wood.
I think a reasonable argument could be made that, at least in relative recency, Masculinity has been experiencing the kind of transition that Femininity went through in the 80s - a complete reversal and even rejection or hatred of recently feminine roles[0]. I've heard that women were hated for wanting to be stay-at-home mothers, like they were rejecting the progress that had been made. Recently, we've started to reverse that again and now a woman can be anything she wants, including a CEO and a stay-at-home mom, without being ostracized (as much) or hated for her choices. We'll get there with men, too, I hope. At least, we will in some circles.
I also think that the Right (and especially the Alt-Right Pipeline) are taking advantage of the framing and blurring of Toxic Masculine traits vs. Non-Toxic Masculine traits. Even the wording: "toxic v non-toxic" puts the negative as the stronger term and the positive only as a negation of the negative. And this conflation and attack reads *very* well for anyone that struggles to find acceptance in both their community and within themselves.
It's not just that, either, it's the whole culture. I'm sure we've all seen the stories of men who, when they do open up to a woman they thought was safe, the woman reflects that she doesn't feel "like he's a man anymore" and so even in places people think should be safe, they have working examples (either in video or in personally lived experiences) of when that DOESN'T work, and the contradiction and pain is exacerbated.
Being accepted for who you are is really, really hard. The generational trauma of a great grandfather who was told by his father to not show emotion, and then carried that same emotion down through the lineage gets us here. The orator who uses their platform to blames others and then how those negative feelings permeate generation after generation. Pain is continued through so many through-lines. And underneath it all, unique people with different life-starting circumstances and different wants and desires just want to be able to be who they are - or who they *want* to be, and there's always someone, somewhere, that tells them what they want is wrong. That person gained their perspective through the same hell and is probably facing the same pain, possibly without even knowing it. And so the cycle continues.
[0] I don't like using the word "Traditional" because gender roles are very fluid and our "Traditional Gender Roles" is mostly a myth that was basically from the post WW2 period through the Vietnam War.
I think you're right that it's wrong to hate on boys (and the men they grow up to be) for wanting to mold themselves into society's current reflection of what a man is.
It's often said that the Left has a branding problem - and that a lot of the Left's stances are too cerebral for the sound-bite and gossip culture we have lived in since forever (and that has gotten more extreme in the world of micro-form content). I think that's correct.
I think there is much to be said about the Left doing a poor job right now of separating and giving strong examples of toxic and non-toxic masculinity - I do think the Left is getting way better at that now, with some very left-leaning men, who DEEPLY fit the Masculine Archetype starting to reveal themselves - there's a specific Afghanistan Vet running for office whose name escapes me that comes to mind; and also that one guy chopping wood.
I think a reasonable argument could be made that, at least in relative recency, Masculinity has been experiencing the kind of transition that Femininity went through in the 80s - a complete reversal and even rejection or hatred of recently feminine roles[0]. I've heard that women were hated for wanting to be stay-at-home mothers, like they were rejecting the progress that had been made. Recently, we've started to reverse that again and now a woman can be anything she wants, including a CEO and a stay-at-home mom, without being ostracized (as much) or hated for her choices. We'll get there with men, too, I hope. At least, we will in some circles.
I also think that the Right (and especially the Alt-Right Pipeline) are taking advantage of the framing and blurring of Toxic Masculine traits vs. Non-Toxic Masculine traits. Even the wording: "toxic v non-toxic" puts the negative as the stronger term and the positive only as a negation of the negative. And this conflation and attack reads *very* well for anyone that struggles to find acceptance in both their community and within themselves.
It's not just that, either, it's the whole culture. I'm sure we've all seen the stories of men who, when they do open up to a woman they thought was safe, the woman reflects that she doesn't feel "like he's a man anymore" and so even in places people think should be safe, they have working examples (either in video or in personally lived experiences) of when that DOESN'T work, and the contradiction and pain is exacerbated.
Being accepted for who you are is really, really hard. The generational trauma of a great grandfather who was told by his father to not show emotion, and then carried that same emotion down through the lineage gets us here. The orator who uses their platform to blames others and then how those negative feelings permeate generation after generation. Pain is continued through so many through-lines. And underneath it all, unique people with different life-starting circumstances and different wants and desires just want to be able to be who they are - or who they *want* to be, and there's always someone, somewhere, that tells them what they want is wrong. That person gained their perspective through the same hell and is probably facing the same pain, possibly without even knowing it. And so the cycle continues.
[0] I don't like using the word "Traditional" because gender roles are very fluid and our "Traditional Gender Roles" is mostly a myth that was basically from the post WW2 period through the Vietnam War.
> current left-wing philosophy that provides any sort of meaningful place or role for masculinity as it is commonly understood
I think this strongly depends on your reality and perception.
How is masculinity commonly understood and what examples do you have of the left and democrats not making space?
On the other side, how can you not see examples of toxic masculinity demonstrated from prominent Republicans including the president?
I think this strongly depends on your reality and perception.
How is masculinity commonly understood and what examples do you have of the left and democrats not making space?
On the other side, how can you not see examples of toxic masculinity demonstrated from prominent Republicans including the president?
> How is masculinity commonly understood and what examples do you have of the left and democrats not making space?
What would you say is the Democratic or progressive view of masculinity and where does it fit in the progressive or liberal worldview?
As a former Democrat, that's not a question I can even begin to answer, because I don't think Democrats,liberals, or progressives see any value in or a role for masculinity. Simply pointing to the other side and saying, "there's some bad guys over there" is not a meaningful retort.
What would you say is the Democratic or progressive view of masculinity and where does it fit in the progressive or liberal worldview?
As a former Democrat, that's not a question I can even begin to answer, because I don't think Democrats,liberals, or progressives see any value in or a role for masculinity. Simply pointing to the other side and saying, "there's some bad guys over there" is not a meaningful retort.
I’m asking you to provide evidence for your claim.
Personally, I don’t see Democrats talking about masculinity that seems to be an obsession of the right.
I think it’s a meaningful because some of the people talking about masculinity and how the Democrats or the liberals want to take that away or get rid of it have often been the worst examples of it in my opinion. I also think it’s worth noting the leaders of political parties and how they themselves represent the values they claim to be fighting for.
Personally, I don’t see Democrats talking about masculinity that seems to be an obsession of the right.
I think it’s a meaningful because some of the people talking about masculinity and how the Democrats or the liberals want to take that away or get rid of it have often been the worst examples of it in my opinion. I also think it’s worth noting the leaders of political parties and how they themselves represent the values they claim to be fighting for.
You're right. Democrats don't talk about masculinity, they talk about erasure of gender instead.
>> Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut also notes liberal squeamishness about masculine themes; he says the party is losing male voters in part because even talking about the need to improve the lives of men could run afoul of what he calls the “word police” on the left. Murphy told me, “There’s a worry that when you start talking about gender differences and masculinity, that you’re going to very quickly get in trouble.” The Democratic Party, he thinks, has not been purposeful enough in opening up a conversation with men in general and young men specifically. “There is a reluctance inside the progressive movement to squarely acknowledge gender differences, and that has really put us on the back foot.”
-- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/democra...
If you can't even speak about the differences between men and women, let alone admit that men and women may face different issues because of those differences, then you'll push whoever you're not prioritizing away. Surely you'll admit that the Democrats prioritize women's issues (e.g. reproductive rights). Many Democrats actively deride men's concerns over economic anxiety, mental health, education gaps, and job losses in male-dominated sectors.
When men didn't vote for Kamala, they were called sexist, explicitly and frequently by both Democrat politicians and the media. Young men who express concern over the future prospects given college and university degree programs graduating more women than men, especially in the last decade, earn the "toxic" label.
There's far more going on with how boys are treated in school, with how media messaging across the board is slanted against masculinity, and how funding for all these efforts traces back to NGOs the Democrats empowered...
So yes, Democrats don't talk about masculinity, on purpose.
>> Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut also notes liberal squeamishness about masculine themes; he says the party is losing male voters in part because even talking about the need to improve the lives of men could run afoul of what he calls the “word police” on the left. Murphy told me, “There’s a worry that when you start talking about gender differences and masculinity, that you’re going to very quickly get in trouble.” The Democratic Party, he thinks, has not been purposeful enough in opening up a conversation with men in general and young men specifically. “There is a reluctance inside the progressive movement to squarely acknowledge gender differences, and that has really put us on the back foot.”
-- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/democra...
If you can't even speak about the differences between men and women, let alone admit that men and women may face different issues because of those differences, then you'll push whoever you're not prioritizing away. Surely you'll admit that the Democrats prioritize women's issues (e.g. reproductive rights). Many Democrats actively deride men's concerns over economic anxiety, mental health, education gaps, and job losses in male-dominated sectors.
When men didn't vote for Kamala, they were called sexist, explicitly and frequently by both Democrat politicians and the media. Young men who express concern over the future prospects given college and university degree programs graduating more women than men, especially in the last decade, earn the "toxic" label.
There's far more going on with how boys are treated in school, with how media messaging across the board is slanted against masculinity, and how funding for all these efforts traces back to NGOs the Democrats empowered...
So yes, Democrats don't talk about masculinity, on purpose.
I’m not sure that it’s masculinity per se that is a sticking point on the Left, it’s the other thing you pointed to, the culture around how we address these things. So-called “cancel culture” is actually a very masculine and conservative activity, specifically by way of established dominance and social hierarchy, and reinforcing in-group norms.
It can be about toxic masculinity, racism, misogyny, homophobia, whatever. I think that these are all real things and important to address, but participating in make-wrong and alienating fellow leftists, while completely dismissing non-leftists as inhuman, is self-defeating.
I like the idea of “call-in” vs “call-out” culture. By inviting other people to the table in a private setting and opening a dialogue to discuss the experiences of marginalized people - or any individual’s need for accommodation - rather than scolding people in public for not adhering to in-group norms that may be completely opaque to outsiders, you change the dynamic. And just by relating to people as people, in more intimate and personal settings than online anonymous forums or a standoffish workplace culture, we take down some of the walls that seem to separate us.
It can be about toxic masculinity, racism, misogyny, homophobia, whatever. I think that these are all real things and important to address, but participating in make-wrong and alienating fellow leftists, while completely dismissing non-leftists as inhuman, is self-defeating.
I like the idea of “call-in” vs “call-out” culture. By inviting other people to the table in a private setting and opening a dialogue to discuss the experiences of marginalized people - or any individual’s need for accommodation - rather than scolding people in public for not adhering to in-group norms that may be completely opaque to outsiders, you change the dynamic. And just by relating to people as people, in more intimate and personal settings than online anonymous forums or a standoffish workplace culture, we take down some of the walls that seem to separate us.
[deleted]
A government study… Interesting. And only because it's a government study, had it been a private institution, I would've thrown this away. But it's interesting… That is the NIH.
Why is this flagged?
Wonder if increased testosterone made some of the subjects seek out hobbies/communities/etc. which in turn influenced them politically.
When I was in my 20s, I started really working out. This in turn opened my eyes to bodybuilding, fitness, and such. I became engaged in that, and the bodybuilding/fitness scene / community is (or at least used to be) very right leaning. Echo chamber of bro-science and populistic rightwing ideology.
When I was in my 20s, I started really working out. This in turn opened my eyes to bodybuilding, fitness, and such. I became engaged in that, and the bodybuilding/fitness scene / community is (or at least used to be) very right leaning. Echo chamber of bro-science and populistic rightwing ideology.
I noticed republicans are more likely to act like a guys who took too much testosterone and now cant handle own feelings and aggression.
Or more realistically, lets wait whether it will be reproduced.
Or more realistically, lets wait whether it will be reproduced.
“Weakly affiliated Democrats had basal Testosterone levels 19% higher than strong Democrats and all Republicans.”
So it's not as simple as "more testosterone means more Republican".