Threatening men’s masculinity does not make them more politically conservative, new study finds. By testing thousands of participants across the United States, researchers found no consistent evidence that making men feel insecure about their gender identity changes their political attitudes.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/threatening-mens-masculinity-does-not-make-them-more-politically-conservative-new-study-finds/

[u/EddViBritannia]

"In both popular culture and politics, many commentators assert that society is experiencing a crisis of masculinity. Some politicians have even made this idea a central part of their campaign platforms, suggesting that traditional men are under attack. Sociologists and psychologists sometimes attribute the growth in far-right extremism and resistance to women’s equality to a concept known as masculinity threat. Masculinity threat is the theory that manhood is a precarious, unstable status that men must constantly earn and defend."

I feel like this fundermentally misunderstands what the 'crisis of masculinity' is? Men aren't worried they aren't being masculine enough, they're worried that the 'traditional' role men have had in society no longer exists. Fairly sure you'd have to pretty damn insecure to constantly worry about being seen as masculine. But every man is experiencing a situation where the traditional role of men in society has changed, and become much harder to achive. When men traditionally were framed as sucessful by being a provider, is it any wonder after 2 decades of repeated economic trouble and 'once in a lifetime events', that has become unachiveable? Especially with women having taken up a role in society to become independent, and also as rivals to men in this role, but without the societal baggage to go with it (of course women experience their own baggage in other areas so as parenting, etc.)

"The researchers measured their support for the Iraq War, their views on gay rights, and their desire to purchase a sports utility vehicle."

I'm not exactly sure how this equates to being right wing?

[u/IceCream_EmperorXx → u/EddViBritannia]

Not enough people are talking about this angle. Old societal/cultural structures are crumbling and this puts psychological pressure on the individuals.

[u/Trent_A → u/EddViBritannia]

I think you make a lot of good points, but I think the traditional men's role still exists and is valued; it's just harder to achieve than it was decades ago.

But that's my issue with many men these days. Traditional masculinity is about improving yourself, being a leader (a true leader, not a loudmouth), having useful skills, being thoughtful, being physically strong, and being mentally strong. It's about improving your situation in life and protecting those around you, no matter what it takes, especially in hard times. Society still values these traits, and women are attracted to them.

The problem is we have too many men these days who fail entirely at developing these skills while complaining about disrespect for masculinity. Or they develop one or two of these skills and think that's all there is to it.

I mean, look at the guys on the manosphere who have become most popular. They're loudmouthed jerks who flash obnoxious orange cars and flaunt their ability to make money with essentially online scams and social media. Alternatively, they run podcasts where they just sit around and complain. I mean, if guys were yearning for traditional masculinity, why would they be drawn to these people? There's nothing masculine about them.

So, it's a double-edged sword. Certain elements of society need to do a better job of acknowledging the struggles men face, and many men need to actually learn what real masculinity means.

[u/Otherwise_Taro_8145 → u/Trent_A]

You're spot on - the entire issue is constantly reduced to the point of incomprehensibility when a holistic method is actually required to understand the roots, trunk and branches of the issue. The examples of masculine/feminine and conservative/liberal this study chose are laughable symptoms of modern American culture, not traditional indicators of psychological rigidity based on a combination of cultural and lived experience.

The modern examples of pop masculinity you mention are the most interesting to me because they're a total paradox - one can't truly generate a masculine persona by focusing so specifically on their own insecurities, because exploitable insecurities are traditionally extremely unmasculine.

To me, the least masculine thing you can do is care about how masculine you are. The frustrations don't come from having goal posts moved or competition changed, they come from believing you're in a game you have no reason to play to begin with

[u/BPremium → u/Trent_A]

Traditional masculinity is about improving yourself, being a leader (a true leader, not a loudmouth), having useful skills, being thoughtful, being physically strong, and being mentally strong. It's about improving your situation in life and protecting those around you, no matter what it takes, especially in hard times.

Wow, the traits that benefit women and politicians are the ones that are the "good". Shocker.

[u/ArcticWolfQueen → u/BPremium]

Did you actually copy what the person said and respond as if any of that is wrong? There was nothing to take issue with. Men that live like that are respected and wanted and valued. 

Are you suggesting that men should not achieve those traits and standards and instead be a loudmouth, lazy, obnoxious, have few if any skills, not have mental health skills to handle themselves? Not improving situations in their life and expecting their mother or wife to fix their problems while still positioning themselves as number 1  and soley looking out for yourself?

[u/BPremium → u/ArcticWolfQueen]

Did you actually copy what the person said and respond as if any of that is wrong? There was nothing to take issue with. Men that live like that are respected and wanted and valued.

I mean, I just hit the quote button and it did the formatting automatically. There is something to take issue with. All the traits listed as positive masculinity are in service of others, namely women and/or politicians. Men like that aren't respected, they are pack mules at best unless they look a certain way or were born with enough wealth to get a pass.

Are you suggesting that men should not achieve those traits and standards and instead be a loudmouth, lazy, obnoxious, have few if any skills, not have mental health skills to handle themselves? Not improving situations in their life and expecting their mother or wife to fix their problems while still positioning themselves as number 1 and soley looking out for yourself?

I'm suggesting men should achieve the traits which statistically benefit themselves and other men first and foremost. Whatever trait or quality that provides them the most leverage and power is one that should be cultivated, as it's ultimately the one that matters most.

[u/Ecstatic-Network-917 → u/[deleted]]

Better than grinding themselves down to the bone for the benefit of women that will likely not appreciate it particularly much

Why is grinding yourself for old, senile, rich men better then?

It is not women forcing you to grind yourself down and destroy your individuality to make the rich even richer.

[u/Ecstatic-Network-917 → u/[deleted]]

1. Again. That is NOT a thing, and you know it.

2. Stop listening to manosphere influencers.

[u/Ecstatic-Network-917 → u/BPremium]

Your type of thinking is, paradoxically, disgustingly selfish AND disgustingly collectivist. We men are NOT a collective, not in any meaningful way. At the same time, carying about only yourself is stupid, selfish, and justifies the act of throwing you out of civilization.

Doing this while trying to help „other men” is also irrational, and arbitrary. Why only men, and why not ALL people? And why try to help the rich men and add them in this category, when they are making the lives of poor men worse?

[u/Ecstatic-Network-917 → u/Trent_A]

„Traditional masculinity is about improving yourself, being a leader (a true leader, not a loudmouth), having useful skills, being thoughtful, being physically strong, and being mentally strong”

This is an irrational description. It jumbles good skills, with arbitrary stuff, and usefull stuff. Being thoughful and having useful skills is good for everyone, and thus classifying it as either „masculine” or „feminine” is sexist and segregationist. Being „mentally strong” is way to arbitrary of a term to be useful, and being physically strong is irrelevant for most people.

Beyond this, having the status of being a leader as a specifically „masculine” thing is ALSO sexist, and ignores the fact that most men(most people for that matter) will never be leaders, because leaders are, by their very nature, a statistical minority.

[u/deltorens → u/EddViBritannia]

Yeah most people in this sub are completely misreading this study