In 2017, the “Soy Boy” meme went viral. The Soy Boy was a feminine and physically weak man, with the idea taken from the belief that products containing soy increased estrogen levels and, so, made men more effeminate. In that left-wing males were clearly more likely to virtue-signal with their food via being vegetarian and even vegan, “Soy Boy” soon became a term that was deployed against left-wing men [‘Soy boys’ is the far-right’s newest favorite insult, By Jay Hathaway, Daily Dot, October 27, 2017].
Well, now we have proof in a yet-to-be published psychological study that leftist men are insecure about their masculinity, and, when challenged about it, they channel that insecurity into support for politically-aggressive public policies.
Before getting to that, it’s worth observing that leftists responded to the Soy Boy meme the way we would expect:
Here’s hoping “soy” will take the same path as “cuck,” become widely known, and will be used to take the piss by the very people labelled “soy boys” in the first place. Because really, who cares if you’re called “soy” if all it means is “not meeting guidelines of masculinity defined by alt-right trolls who appear to be terrified of all things feminine??
[What is a Soy Boy? By Ellen Scott, The Metro, October 28, 2017]
As William Shakespeare would say, methinks the lady doth protest too much. It’s as if the Woke, on the rare occasions that they’re honest with themselves, know that Woke males are relatively feminine; as if Woke males are “insecure about their masculinity.”
They certainly should be. Leftist men are shorter, less muscular, and weaker in the upper body than conservatives:
- Height, Income and Voting, By R. Arunachalam and S. Watson, British Journal of Political Science, 2018
- The Ancestral Logic of Politics: Upper Body Strength Regulates Men’s Assertion of Self-Interest Over Economic Redistribution, By M.B. Petersen, D. Sznycer, A. Sell et al., Psychological Science, 2013
But forget that and think about this: leftists support politically aggressive policies and politicians because they are weak.
A study by New York University’s Sarah DiMuccio, and Eric Knowles found, as their pithy title makes clear, that threats to masculinity evoke aggression in leftist men but not conservatives [Something to Prove? Manhood Threats Increase Political Aggression Among Liberal Men, Psyarxiv Preprints, The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science, October 22, 2022]. “Cognitive dissonance”—being confronted with unpalatable truths, especially those that undermine one’s positive self-perception—causes an aggressive response [A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, by Leon Festinger, 1957].
DiMuccio and Knowles found that chronic masculine insecurity and political aggression—“supporting candidates that communicate toughness and strength”— are related. Until now, researchers had not explored whether it is leftist or conservative men who are more likely to act aggressively in response to slights on their masculinity. The study also explores the nature of “masculinity” and why it can be threatened. A girl becomes a woman because she grows up; a boy becomes a man through rituals that prove his masculinity. Being a real “man” is an on-going struggle; so there is little worse, for some men, than having their masculinity questioned.
“Politics is an especially appealing avenue through which men can express aggression and thus reaffirm their masculinity,” the two wrote:
First, because it impacts millions of people, the political domain is highly consequential and therefore can provide a heightened sense of power and influence. Second, politics enables male voters to signal their masculinity vicariously, through support for politicians and political positions that most evince masculine traits of toughness, risk-taking, and aggression. Third, displaying aggression through politics can be an effective way of proving manliness without violating social norms against physical violence.
One would expect, they write, that conservatives are more prone to back politically-aggressive candidates or public policies, meaning the death penalty or military action, because they are, indeed, more masculine than leftists.
Their own work “shows that masculine anxiety predicts a wide range of aggressive political beliefs.” But then, they say, not so fast:
One must be cautious about claiming that masculinity anxiety causes aggressive political views. The reverse causal pattern is possible; for instance, it may be that endorsing aggressive policies and candidates serves to highlight associated notions of manhood, thus priming men’s concerns about their own masculinity. [Emphasis added]
Thus, the two conducted three experiments to find out.
First, men were essentially told that they were feminine. Second, they were told to paint their nails as part of an important scientific experiment. Third, they were led to believe that they were physically weak. After that, the researchers asked the men to react to hypothetical political scenarios, for instance, by listening to “a foreign policy vignette.” That enabled DiMuccio and Knowles to rate how aggressive the ideas they advocated were. Those results were paired with scores on an earlier test about how conservative or liberal they were.
The result was this:
Our findings run directly counter to our initial prediction as to which men—liberals or conservatives—would be most affected by masculinity threat. Although we hypothesized that conservative men would increase in political aggression after masculinity threat, they did not; instead, across our three experiments, it was liberal men who exhibited politically-aggressive reactions to manhood threat. [Emphasis added]
For a number of reasons, the authors hypothesized that conservatives would react more aggressively when their masculinity was attacked.
Conservative policies are tougher and less compassionate than leftist policies, and conservatives tend to hold more traditional beliefs about sex roles. Earlier, the researchers had “found that men whose manhood had been challenged were more supportive of Donald Trump, and that this effect was mediated by the desire for a more masculine president.”
DiMuccio and Knowles were rather surprised to find their experiments completely overturned this hypothesis. All three showed that leftists became markedly more politically aggressive than conservatives when they perceived a threat to their masculinity.
Surprisingly, the authors completely failed to understand why they found what they found. In their “General Discussion” section they suggested a number of reasons:
- A Ceiling Effect on increased conservative aggression, because they are already so aggressive in their political preferences. This is unlikely, as only 17 percent of conservatives scored at or near the ceiling of the instrument.
- Stereotype Threat: Leftists are insecure about their masculinity because of stereotypes that leftists are feminine. This invites the question of how and why the stereotype arose. Psychologist Lee Jussim has shown that stereotypes tend to be accurate, and studies have refuted the validity of “stereotype threat;” i.e., that stereotyping affects a person’s success in a given endeavor [Social Perception and Social Reality, By Lee Jussim, 2012; An examination of stereotype threat effects on girls’ mathematics performance, By Colleen Ganley et al., Developmental Psychology, 2013].
- Leftists become more conservative when threatened. That means their leftism is disingenuous.
The simplest explanation for all this— which I’ve explored many times—is that leftists are more neurotic than conservatives. That’s why they suffer more from depression and might be more aggressive. They are also less altruistic and more impulsive, which would also make them more aggressive.
Strong negative feelings include envy and insecurity, so they desire power —they are Machiavellian—and attempt to achieve it covertly because they are insecure and anxious about fighting and instead prefer virtue-signalling. They are high in narcissism, so they deal with intense negative feelings by creating a false perfect self. Thus, telling a leftist he isn’t masculine invites aggression because he experiences cognitive dissonance.
Amusingly, the authors’ findings were unwelcome, and instead of suggesting that leftists grow a pair, stop consuming soy, and act like men, they recommended undermining masculinity more than our increasingly feminized—and feminist—society already has:
A challenge for the future is to inoculate all men from chronic and acute masculine insecurity—perhaps through concerted efforts to combat societal stereotypes and sex roles that limit what it means to be a “real man.”
What maudlin nonsense. The study should have concluded what the authors surely know but cannot admit because it would concede that the stereotype is true. Leftist men are insecure about their masculinity, and become aggressive when it’s questioned, because they are more insecure and more aggressive in general, which is what makes them leftists in the first place.
Lance Welton [email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist living in New York.
According to Dutton’s own research,1 atheism is more masculine than theism (due to autism) – hence, you’d predict right-wing men to be less religious… but the INVERSE is true: liberal men are the ones who don’t go to Church.
First we get money spent to determine how fast ketchup sides down an incline.
Now we get this nonsense.
There’s certainly too much money spent on things of no consequence.
Short men tend to be aggressive and mouthy. Taller guys know that they are threatening “a priori” tend to hang back and keep quiet. Irish wolfhounds are generally laid back. Terriers are yapping little annoyances.
The nice thing about generalities are that you can be wrong and still say that you are generally right. American pit bull terriers are anything but “yappy”. Neither do they tend to be mean, generally. In this I am correct, though you may disagree. I actually disagree with your statement completely but I don’t know the crowd you run with. My crowd tends to be very manly, both short and tall, both types very confident in who, and what, they are. Cheers.
Those soyboys are not in power. Jews are in power, and they got plenty of paranoid chutzpah.
As for all these ‘alpha’ right-wing men, they are rammed in the ass by Zion but have nothing to say but ‘Muh Israel’ and ‘Democrats are the real racists’.
Thus we find any system which chooses promotions based on presentations is inherently feminine and feminizing. The more feminine the representative, the more aggressive they’ll be in compensation, and thus the more violently they’ll pursue their policies.
Violation, as always, privileges the short-term over the long-term. The more violation works, the more feminine a representative has to be to get anything done.
Some of us who fancied ourselves revolutionaries over half a century ago got to meet some of the real Reds who came close to launching class war here in the Depression. Man, they were some tough dudes, street fighters, ready to do whatever was necessary to destroy our overlords. Look up 1934 and the open warfare in American cities. It’s quite eye opening, what they did. And they were intelligent men, not fooled by FDR liberals and fake pro-establishment progressives. They looked us long hairs over with complete disdain: we were as bitterly disappointing to them as these pitiful specimens of masculinity are to us now.
I call myself a leftist because I believe in fairness. I don’t like to see the strong piss on the weak, to see men addicted to money and power run roughshod over people who just want to live their lives like human beings.
Revenge of the Nerds.
Who’s more likely to fly the Ukrainian flag and be a hawk against Russia?
Who’s more likely to want all firearms confiscated, and all power to be monopolized by the state?
Who’s more likely to support mask mandates?
Who’s more likely to want to censorship?
The insecure are petty tyrants.
It’s always seemed to me that the converse is true. Conservative men are often overconfident and complacent. It’s the stereotype of the “boomer conservative” that so many of us have observed for much of our lives.
I’ve got nothing substantial to say on the subject. So I’ll just share with you a thought by one of my favorite thinkers Ludwig Feuerbach:
“Sexual difference is not a superficial difference limited to certain parts of the body; it is much more essential; it permeates the entire organism. The essence of man is masculinity; the essence of woman is femininity. No matter how spiritualized and free of sensuality a man may be, he will still be a man; the same is true of a woman. Therefore, identity is nothing without sexual distinction. ”
Our problem today is that the money/power has appropriated the language of the left and appropriated almost every means of expressing discontent. How a billionaire clique stamping on the face of the average person is, when you think about it, actually fighting bigotry and oppression.
Remember communism and the labour movement?
Read up on how much of it was actually funded by large corporations and banks. Lenin made special concessions to US-American companies that wanted to drill for oil in Siberia. These arrangements persisted until the mid ’30s when Stalin revoked them, coinciding with his great purge or so we would like to think. Also both Europe and the USA were very happy when it came to manufacturing stuff in the Soviet gulags. Flooding the world market with cheap textiles in exchange for money that could be used by the Soviet government to buy Western, predominantly German, machinery. Obviously, the arrangement was technically detrimental to the Soviet Union, but this would matter little since it was the commoner and not the elitist party state that suffered and still does to this day.
Nothing has changed in the last 100 years and I expect that nothing will change in the next 100 years
“Man, they were some tough dudes, street fighters, ready to do whatever was necessary to destroy our overlords.”
I remember reading that Adolph Hitler was of the opinion that homosexuals made the best street fighters. And then there were those 300 Spartan street fighters at Thermopylae.
There is a lot more to worry about than verbal sparring in the replacement of meat with soy!!
Soy has been indicated to interfere with the absorption of the most essential mineral for IQ development, IODINE!!
Doctors prescribe iodine during pregnancy knowing without it the child will be born low IQ!!
Iodine after birth does not alter the tragedy of the established low IQ from deficient iodine during pregnancy.
Recall the Mad Cow disease being discovered to be misfolded proteins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy
The article: “the British Gov took the position there was another cause than prions…” which recognizes the the inclusion of too much manganese could be the cause. Too much manganese is indicted in Parkinsons and Alzheimers.
Our gov has bowed to the corporate profiteers and allowed toxic levels of natural occurring minerals and too little natural mineral inclusion in our food. It is as if LOW IQ were being carefully cultivated among the former middle class of America.
Why people still make use of to read news papers whdn in this technological world everything is accessible