© 2023 41 Pushups, LLC
The idea that having multiple sexual partners is a mark of traditional manhood could only be believed by left-wing academics who already had their conclusions drawn before they did the study, and assumed progressive manhood was morally and intellectually superior.
The descent of fatherless boys into promiscuity, domestic violence, crime, and gang membership is excellent proof that fathers civilize their sons and direct their masculinity into positive and moral paths. The primal brutishness of men was better known by uneducated people of past generations than by today’s PhD’s who think they are geniuses always inventing the wheel for the first time.
A laughable study. It would be satire if it wasn’t all too real.
Well said Sir.
Wow, you are telling me you actually needed an expensive study to discover what is overwhelming obvious.
And who determines what is positive and negative masculinity?
As far as my children are concerned, I do, not you or anyone else. That masculine enough for you?
In other news, water is wet.
I find it disturbing that the article suggests that masculinity needs reform or correction. A better use of funds would be to rescue young men who continue to fall behind women in education, career and marriage prospects. A society that neglects the needs of boys will crumble.
this “research” article is a woke joke. traditional masculinity is exemplified through the Savior of the world …. Jesus Christ. Having multiple sexual partners is not a sign of masculinity. It is a sign of sexual selfishness and immaturity. Sometimes violence is necessary as Jesus demonstrated by overturning the tables in the temple out of anger for the disrespect of God our Father in heaven.
I am suspicious about this study, as it presents this as a “problem” pattern that needs breaking AND it’s link to a paper describing “positive masculinity” is a paper that defines masculinity as being a male who is both feminine (collaborative, communicative, pacifist, etc.) AND more important,a political “ally” with leftist gender equality goals. Politics should not be considered a biological metric in a scientific study.
What a limited silly description of traditional maleness,” characterized by beliefs in male superiority and endorsement of risky or violent behaviors.” How about protecting, providing, and doing the worst tasks so women don’t have to. That’s the traditional masculinity my father taught me.
This study left out many significant masculine traits. Masculinity also includes self sacrificing risk taking to protect women and children. It includes care of the weak. It includes respecting parents and similar authority. It includes personal honor and integrity. A strong man is always gentle. Gentlemen stayed on the sinking Titanic to make lifeboat room for women and children. These traits are critical and missed by fatherless boys.
With the advent of wokeism infecting the academic community pushing its agenda the expense of actual science, articles like this can no longer be believed at all.
They have more in common with an opinion piece on a partisan news channel than actual science.
This is what happens when DEI hires based on equity perform so-called “research”.
They already know the answer they want to get and then they “discover it” and attempt to use the credibility of science to insist on their beliefs’ credibility.
Such articles like this are not credible and should not be believed regardless of what they say.
Why do I get the feeling that these people shouldn’t be trying to shape anyone’s idea of masculinity? That their idea of positive masculinity is making men more feminine and emotional instead of making men the strong leaders that society needs today.
“Some adhere to more traditional models of masculinity, characterized by beliefs in male superiority and endorsement of risky or violent behaviors”
How is it you define that as “traditional”
Traditional masculinity involves protecting your spouse and children, providing for them, and the willingness to put them before yourself. Does that mean it some instances you must you violence? Yes. But being unwillingly to unleash violence on someone that is going to harm your children or wife is not “a more progressive stance on masculinity”. It’s simply weakness.
You gender-confused limp wristed liberals will be the downfall of western culture.
You lost me in the first paragraph with the pejorative generalizations of men. Get a life.
Seems fairly obvious for those raised with and by fathers. Much more interesting would be to take this study to the next level, masculinity of males raised by single (abandoned) mothers.
The results of this study could be the result 100% of genetics. There is NO LEARNING being demonstrated by this correlational study at all.
I love this study. Raise your son to be a real man, or raise your son to be a new man. Wonder which one will be happiest,
What a bunch of drivel. Who thought of these ridiculous questions to check the measure of a man’s masculinity. Not a one of those have anything to do with masculinity. However in keeping with todays norms I am sure the limp wristed designers of this are quite sure they have asked the right questions.
As others have pointed out, this is close to pseudo-science level polling. My take is besides the lack of a control group, how can one use such a skewed sample and then base it off of an entire gender? I mean first we have the OZ regional (continental) bias, then we also have the racial bias (4/5 euro). This belongs in a town-level or regional level survey and nothing more.
The headline/title is misleading – like how they put a photo caption of black ppl at the top yet the survey has nothing at all to do with this group.
Dangerous virtue -signaling may be going on here.
Congratulations! You’ve discovered role models.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *