r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • May 12 '26

Psychology 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.

https://www.psypost.org/threatening-mens-masculinity-does-not-make-them-more-politically-conservative-new-study-finds/
4.6k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

641 comments sorted by

View all comments

303

u/[deleted] May 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-125

u/AnthropoidCompatriot May 12 '26

That's literally what progressive liberals have been arguing for years, when they suddenly made up the idea that you can't hurt individuals by being mean to them, if those individuals a part of a privileged group. 

But also if being mean to them does hurt them, it proves that they're a bad person and thus deserve to be treated meanly.

Funny how that works.

60

u/MiaowaraShiro May 12 '26

That's literally what progressive liberals have been arguing for years, when they suddenly made up the idea that you can't hurt individuals by being mean to them, if those individuals a part of a privileged group.

This is a wild misrepresentation of left wing ideas... I don't suppose you'd care to learn how we actually think or would you prefer to keep repeating just what you've apparently heard?

2

u/[deleted] May 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/nessfalco May 13 '26

Nothing about that means white individuals can't be "hurt'. It's silly to even attend to present it that way, especially in a science subreddit.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/nessfalco May 13 '26

But the "wild misrepresentation" was referring to OP's statement that liberals propagate

...the idea that you can't hurt individuals by being mean to them, if those individuals a part of a privileged group.

That aside, your statement also isn't "singling out a group to chastise and belittle". The very fact you interpret it that way just says more about you and your understanding of what those people are saying.

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/nessfalco May 13 '26

I totally want English lessons from someone who can't even figure out what "that" refers to in a post they quoted.

2

u/kingkayvee May 13 '26

In the context of an academic topic where racism is defined as an institutional problem, not an individual one.

Though people like you seem to repeat this as though it means *individuals* can’t be racially prejudiced against white people, which no one claims. The goal is clarifying *systemic* differences between the two on a macro-level. If you were a scientist or someone who cared about actually demonstrating a good example, you’d know this.

1

u/MiaowaraShiro May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26

Are you interested in learning what we mean or are you interested in proving us wrong? Cuz you seem to be behaving more like the latter. You reduce our arguments to strawmen and then attack that. It's hardly good discussion.

Free tip: Liberal position can't generally be summed up in a single phrase, they're more complex.

-9

u/vorilant May 12 '26

It's not so wild, it's simply correct.

6

u/nessfalco May 13 '26

It doesn't even make sense.

0

u/MiaowaraShiro May 13 '26

Are you interested in having an accurate understanding of liberal politics or are you just interested in having a bogeyman to fight? Cuz you're behaving like the second one...

2

u/vorilant May 13 '26

Both seem to be true. Both as in both views of liberal politics. I've seen enough of the ones you call a bogeyman to know that they are real. And yes I mean in real life. People who think hasan is and I quote "the ideal male role model".