The Western White Male Personality Is Maladaptive

Jon

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
560
Location
Colorado
@Hugh Johnson here's a comforting cyber hug and back patting for the limitations of your childhood. :grouphug

I have Montague's book; that's a 1950s oldie.

He showed how

woman's physical makeup made her not only man's equal, but his superior. Also a humanist, Montagu points to the emotional and social qualities typically ascribed to and devalued in women as being key to just social life and relationships.

YOU SAID:
I think high adaptability and low aggressiveness are characteristic human and primate traits, which are typical of infants, and are likely to represent our species' future.


I'm not so sure of that. In the past women tended to balance men out. We were the peace keepers, comforters ( here we have some social/emotional qualities). If one would observe the general aggressiveness of many of today's young girls and women, one might fear for the future of the human race. Alot of teachers tell me the girl's are worse than the boys....so it's not just me noticing it.

Is it from hormones or culture? Or both?

And yes, I think feminists can throw the baby out w/ the bathwater. I grew up a tomboy w/ 5 brothers, very athletic and comfortable hangin' with the guys. My first major job, I climbed smoke stacks and tested the effluent, used tools and built/repaired equipment with ease....I'm 60 and women just didn't do those jobs then.

But I still enjoyed my femininity and its perks from the dance betw/ men and women.

Are guys becoming more effeminate, on the other hand? If you talk with many, they would say yes.

A balance of typical gender qualities is a good thing in both sexes but I believe something else is going on that's not natural.

Any ideas?

I would say youre on the nose with your assesments :)

I think (speaking as a man of 29yrs old with parents in their 60s) that the societal demasculinization of men and masculinization of women (in their behaviors) is more about my generations loss of actionable capability or willingness. We're more of a generation of armchair quarterbacks and vicarious thrill seekers. We can openly criticize anyone we like from the comfort of our own home and it's loud enough for the whole world to hear with the advent of the internet without ever having to risk people knowing who spoke the critisicm. We have made up digital worlds that the youth spend most of their young developmental lives in, we have marketing and advertisement bombardments telling us we're not worthy of good things until we buy and obtain good things that are materialistic and vain to prove we are better than others without.

I wish I could remember the forum users name who wrote "Testosterone is a phenomena seeking hormone" because no statement I have ever seen or heard has ever resonated more truth about the masculine hormone than this. This hormone is secreted most once a risk is rewarded, once a goal is accomplished, once effort is exerted, and once confidence is established.

If you think of it this way, no wonder people are more estrogen dominant than ever! There was a time in the world where the only way to experience something was to go OUT and live it! The generations before us were doers because they really had no choice but to be if they wanted to see and experience the world and meet people and make connections. It's not surprising then that generations prior to present had generally better health; men had more testosterone, and women's bodies weren't trying to downregulate their own production of estrogen. Are these things that were catalyzed by endocrine disruption through toxic food sources and unconducive lifestyles? Yes most likely, but is it the only cause? HELL NO!

I recently told another member of the forum that I adopted the mindset of a man that has high androgen output before I actually changed my health for the better. I feel that this paved the way and nudged my body towards health for the better, and I've realized that mindset is truly the foundation of good health, and the beauty of it is that your mindset can be the product of choice, not the byproduct of its environment both exogenous and endogenous. Most in this generation are not taught that happiness and a healthy mindset is a choice, just like any other action we humans are capable of.

I feel that if people chose to practice Patience, Confidence, and Fortitude we would see a healthier society of adaptive human beings; man and woman alike. But we're not taught that any part of our lives are a choice for the most part.
 

lvysaur

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
2,286
I wish I could remember the forum users name who wrote "Testosterone is a phenomena seeking hormone" because no statement I have ever seen or heard has ever resonated more truth about the masculine hormone than this. This hormone is secreted most once a risk is rewarded, once a goal is accomplished, once effort is exerted, and once confidence is established.

I agree with this. There is a health that comes from doing non-trivial things and being rewarded for it. I think this could also explain the ill health in a lot of people who do the same thing day in and day out (rural ranchers for example)

I've come to accept that the old adage is somewhat true: strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make bad times, bad times make strong men
 

theLaw

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
1,403


[COLOR=#000000]Women's aggressiveness shouldn't significantly effect men, as we are larger animals, so I assume there is a con going on here.

At some point men were convinced not to use their physical presence as a tool, because it was unfair to women. Those aggressive females you refer to act that way because they know that nearly all men will not use physical violence to defend themselves........no matter what.
[/COLOR]
[B][COLOR=#000000]As Gavin McInnes famously said :[/COLOR][/B]

[I][COLOR=#000000]"Therefore, if you are stuck in a situation where a maniacal female is pounding the crap out of you, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest [B]you can hit her once for every 12 blows she delivers to you.[/B] I’m not saying you punch her in the face, and I’m not saying that her giving you an open-handed slap counts as a “blow.” If she is giving you real man punches that look like they wouldn’t be scoffed at in a boxing ring, take all 12. Don’t even block them. If they get you in the face, take them in the face. Get a black eye. If she’s nailing your ribs, allow them to get bruised. They won’t get broken. Unless she’s a giant, you’re not going to get knocked out, either, so take every hit you get that isn’t in the balls. Make it clear you’re going to fight back after 12. Then, when your body has taken a dozen reasonable hits, give her a solid punch in between her collarbone and her solar plexus. The punch shouldn’t be bone-breaking; it should be bruise-making, and it’s what Jay-Z should have done to Solange if he was alone.

It seems cruel, but it teaches a lesson: If you’re going to play with the big boys, you have to play by big-boy rules. It’s like standing over a kid as he plays with matches. He keeps striking match after match and then gets burned when he touches the phosphorous. As you sit there getting pounded, you’re essentially saying, “You want to experience violence? OK, this is what it is.”[/COLOR]

[URL='https://thoughtcatalog.com/gavin-mcinnes/2014/05/when-is-it-ok-to-hit-a-woman/']When Is It OK To Hit A Woman?[/URL][/I]
 

Ulysses

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Messages
340
It might be true that women on average are more nurturing and cooperative than males, but I would expect the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis to apply here, as it does virtually everywhere else, with the total nurturing by males following a pareto distribution so that a small handful of males are responsible for an outsized share of the total.

Below Frans de Waal talks about the self-interest that's involved with males providing aid and comfort to the group. I freely admit the role played by self-interest in this, but these kinds of pro-social actions can always be conceived as self-interested, no matter who undertakes them. If you want to understand why some males, or men, are so openly defiant and anti-social, it's usually because the group has made it clear to them that they will not be respected no matter what they do, thus removing their incentive for cooperation. So, just like the lion's share of pro-social behavior is undertaken by apex males, I would also expect a small minority to be responsible for most of the anti-social behavior. And in fact, this small minority is what tarnishes the reputation of males at large, and makes males look worse by comparison, just because there is no such minority (or, at least, appears to be no such minority) among females.

Primate research supports these ideas:

Frans de Waal: The surprising science of alpha males

The alpha male has two sorts of obligations. One is to keep the peace in the group. We call that the control role, to control fights in the group, and the second is to be the most empathic, the consoler in chief, basically, of the nation, so to speak.

So first of all, keeping the peace. This is a male who stops a fight between two females. Two females on the left and the right have been screaming and yelling at each other over food, because food is very important for the females, and so he stops the fight between them and stands between them like this. And it's very interesting to me that alpha males, when they do this, they become impartial. They don't support their mom or their best buddy. No, no, they stop fights, and they come up for the underdog in general. And this makes them extremely popular in the group, because they provide security for the lowest-ranking members of the group. And so they become impartial, which is an unusual condition for a chimpanzee to be in, because they're usually very fond of their friends and so on, and these alpha males who are good at this, they can be very effective at keeping the peace in the group.

And the second thing they do is they show empathy for others. Now, I do an enormous amount of research on empathy, and I don't have time to go into it, but empathy is nowadays a topic that we study in rodents and dogs and elephants and primates, all sorts of animals. And what you see here is two bonobos. The one in front has been beaten up in a fight. The one in the back puts her arms around her and consoles her. This is also actually how we measure empathy in young children, by looking at how they respond to distressed individuals. And high-ranking males, they do a lot of this. High-ranking males provide an enormous amount of comfort in the group, and they go to places where there are earthquakes or hurricanes and they provide comfort. The pope does this. The presidents do this. All the leaders in the world have to do this job. The queen does it and so on. They all have to do this job, so providing consolation, and that's a very important task. And males who are good at these two, keeping the peace and providing comfort, they become extremely popular leaders, and there's actually some self-interest involved in it. They don't do it just for the group, because it also stabilizes their position. The more popular a male becomes as alpha male and the more the rest of them respects them and looks up to them, the better their position is defended in case it's going to be challenged by somebody else, because then, of course, the whole group is going to support that male because they want to keep a leader who is good for them. So the group is usually very supportive of males who are good leaders, and it's not supportive at all of bullies. And when bullies lose their position, they may end up in a very bad situation there.

This is data actually on the consolation behavior. This is data on consolation in chimpanzees, and you see for the medium- and low-ranking individuals, the females do more of it than the males. This is basically the whole community. And this is true for all the mammal studies on empathy is that females have more of it than males. But look at the alpha male. The alpha male does far more than anybody else. And so that's the data on alpha males being the consoler in chief, basically...

You should not call a bully an alpha male. Someone who is big and strong and intimidates and insults everyone is not necessarily an alpha male. An alpha male has all sorts of qualities, and I have seen bully alpha males in chimpanzees, they do occur, but most of the ones that we have have leadership capacities and are integrated in their community, and, like Amos at the end, they are loved and respected, and so it's a very different situation than you may think.​
 

Jon

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
560
Location
Colorado
It might be true that women on average are more nurturing and cooperative than males, but I would expect the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis to apply here, as it does virtually everywhere else, with the total nurturing by males following a pareto distribution so that a small handful of males are responsible for an outsized share of the total.

Below Frans de Waal talks about the self-interest that's involved with males providing aid and comfort to the group. I freely admit the role played by self-interest in this, but these kinds of pro-social actions can always be conceived as self-interested, no matter who undertakes them. If you want to understand why some males, or men, are so openly defiant and anti-social, it's usually because the group has made it clear to them that they will not be respected no matter what they do, thus removing their incentive for cooperation. So, just like the lion's share of pro-social behavior is undertaken by apex males, I would also expect a small minority to be responsible for most of the anti-social behavior. And in fact, this small minority is what tarnishes the reputation of males at large, and makes males look worse by comparison, just because there is no such minority (or, at least, appears to be no such minority) among females.

Primate research supports these ideas:

Frans de Waal: The surprising science of alpha males

The alpha male has two sorts of obligations. One is to keep the peace in the group. We call that the control role, to control fights in the group, and the second is to be the most empathic, the consoler in chief, basically, of the nation, so to speak.

So first of all, keeping the peace. This is a male who stops a fight between two females. Two females on the left and the right have been screaming and yelling at each other over food, because food is very important for the females, and so he stops the fight between them and stands between them like this. And it's very interesting to me that alpha males, when they do this, they become impartial. They don't support their mom or their best buddy. No, no, they stop fights, and they come up for the underdog in general. And this makes them extremely popular in the group, because they provide security for the lowest-ranking members of the group. And so they become impartial, which is an unusual condition for a chimpanzee to be in, because they're usually very fond of their friends and so on, and these alpha males who are good at this, they can be very effective at keeping the peace in the group.

And the second thing they do is they show empathy for others. Now, I do an enormous amount of research on empathy, and I don't have time to go into it, but empathy is nowadays a topic that we study in rodents and dogs and elephants and primates, all sorts of animals. And what you see here is two bonobos. The one in front has been beaten up in a fight. The one in the back puts her arms around her and consoles her. This is also actually how we measure empathy in young children, by looking at how they respond to distressed individuals. And high-ranking males, they do a lot of this. High-ranking males provide an enormous amount of comfort in the group, and they go to places where there are earthquakes or hurricanes and they provide comfort. The pope does this. The presidents do this. All the leaders in the world have to do this job. The queen does it and so on. They all have to do this job, so providing consolation, and that's a very important task. And males who are good at these two, keeping the peace and providing comfort, they become extremely popular leaders, and there's actually some self-interest involved in it. They don't do it just for the group, because it also stabilizes their position. The more popular a male becomes as alpha male and the more the rest of them respects them and looks up to them, the better their position is defended in case it's going to be challenged by somebody else, because then, of course, the whole group is going to support that male because they want to keep a leader who is good for them. So the group is usually very supportive of males who are good leaders, and it's not supportive at all of bullies. And when bullies lose their position, they may end up in a very bad situation there.

This is data actually on the consolation behavior. This is data on consolation in chimpanzees, and you see for the medium- and low-ranking individuals, the females do more of it than the males. This is basically the whole community. And this is true for all the mammal studies on empathy is that females have more of it than males. But look at the alpha male. The alpha male does far more than anybody else. And so that's the data on alpha males being the consoler in chief, basically...

You should not call a bully an alpha male. Someone who is big and strong and intimidates and insults everyone is not necessarily an alpha male. An alpha male has all sorts of qualities, and I have seen bully alpha males in chimpanzees, they do occur, but most of the ones that we have have leadership capacities and are integrated in their community, and, like Amos at the end, they are loved and respected, and so it's a very different situation than you may think.​

Wow this is fascinating stuff, thanks for this.
 

Dhair

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
880
It might be true that women on average are more nurturing and cooperative than males, but I would expect the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis to apply here, as it does virtually everywhere else, with the total nurturing by males following a pareto distribution so that a small handful of males are responsible for an outsized share of the total.

Below Frans de Waal talks about the self-interest that's involved with males providing aid and comfort to the group. I freely admit the role played by self-interest in this, but these kinds of pro-social actions can always be conceived as self-interested, no matter who undertakes them. If you want to understand why some males, or men, are so openly defiant and anti-social, it's usually because the group has made it clear to them that they will not be respected no matter what they do, thus removing their incentive for cooperation. So, just like the lion's share of pro-social behavior is undertaken by apex males, I would also expect a small minority to be responsible for most of the anti-social behavior. And in fact, this small minority is what tarnishes the reputation of males at large, and makes males look worse by comparison, just because there is no such minority (or, at least, appears to be no such minority) among females.

Primate research supports these ideas:

Frans de Waal: The surprising science of alpha males

The alpha male has two sorts of obligations. One is to keep the peace in the group. We call that the control role, to control fights in the group, and the second is to be the most empathic, the consoler in chief, basically, of the nation, so to speak.

So first of all, keeping the peace. This is a male who stops a fight between two females. Two females on the left and the right have been screaming and yelling at each other over food, because food is very important for the females, and so he stops the fight between them and stands between them like this. And it's very interesting to me that alpha males, when they do this, they become impartial. They don't support their mom or their best buddy. No, no, they stop fights, and they come up for the underdog in general. And this makes them extremely popular in the group, because they provide security for the lowest-ranking members of the group. And so they become impartial, which is an unusual condition for a chimpanzee to be in, because they're usually very fond of their friends and so on, and these alpha males who are good at this, they can be very effective at keeping the peace in the group.

And the second thing they do is they show empathy for others. Now, I do an enormous amount of research on empathy, and I don't have time to go into it, but empathy is nowadays a topic that we study in rodents and dogs and elephants and primates, all sorts of animals. And what you see here is two bonobos. The one in front has been beaten up in a fight. The one in the back puts her arms around her and consoles her. This is also actually how we measure empathy in young children, by looking at how they respond to distressed individuals. And high-ranking males, they do a lot of this. High-ranking males provide an enormous amount of comfort in the group, and they go to places where there are earthquakes or hurricanes and they provide comfort. The pope does this. The presidents do this. All the leaders in the world have to do this job. The queen does it and so on. They all have to do this job, so providing consolation, and that's a very important task. And males who are good at these two, keeping the peace and providing comfort, they become extremely popular leaders, and there's actually some self-interest involved in it. They don't do it just for the group, because it also stabilizes their position. The more popular a male becomes as alpha male and the more the rest of them respects them and looks up to them, the better their position is defended in case it's going to be challenged by somebody else, because then, of course, the whole group is going to support that male because they want to keep a leader who is good for them. So the group is usually very supportive of males who are good leaders, and it's not supportive at all of bullies. And when bullies lose their position, they may end up in a very bad situation there.

This is data actually on the consolation behavior. This is data on consolation in chimpanzees, and you see for the medium- and low-ranking individuals, the females do more of it than the males. This is basically the whole community. And this is true for all the mammal studies on empathy is that females have more of it than males. But look at the alpha male. The alpha male does far more than anybody else. And so that's the data on alpha males being the consoler in chief, basically...

You should not call a bully an alpha male. Someone who is big and strong and intimidates and insults everyone is not necessarily an alpha male. An alpha male has all sorts of qualities, and I have seen bully alpha males in chimpanzees, they do occur, but most of the ones that we have have leadership capacities and are integrated in their community, and, like Amos at the end, they are loved and respected, and so it's a very different situation than you may think.​
Talking about the possible self-interest involved in loving and nurturing behaviors is entirely irrelevant IMO, because as you mentioned, almost any behavior like that could be construed as motivated by self-interest. Even if a person realizes that it's in his best interest to protect and support other males, he wouldn't necessarily realize it until after the fact. So I think it's important to be careful about labeling these behaviors. People often do this, and it comes across as cynical and neo-Darwinian.
 

Ulysses

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Messages
340
Talking about the possible self-interest involved in loving and nurturing behaviors is entirely irrelevant IMO, because as you mentioned, almost any behavior like that could be construed as motivated by self-interest. Even if a person realizes that it's in his best interest to protect and support other males, he wouldn't necessarily realize it until after the fact. So I think it's important to be careful about labeling these behaviors. People often do this, and it comes across as cynical and neo-Darwinian.
I completely agree with you. That part was just anticipatory refutation.

In the end, it's a tautology "it was in his self-interest because he did it, and he did it because it was in his self-interest"
 

Jon

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
560
Location
Colorado
I agree with this. There is a health that comes from doing non-trivial things and being rewarded for it. I think this could also explain the ill health in a lot of people who do the same thing day in and day out (rural ranchers for example)

I've come to accept that the old adage is somewhat true: strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make bad times, bad times make strong men

Interesting saying. I also think it's best to think outside those parameters and realize your actions are a choice just as your perception can be.

This reminds me of my favorite Greek myth about king Sisyphus and the quotes from Albert Camus's "The Myth of Sisyphus" that reads "If the descent [i.e., Sisyphus' returning to the bottom of the mountain to start pushing the rock upward all over again] is sometimes performed in sorrow, it can also take place in joy." And "The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy." (From The Value of Labor and The Myth of Sisyphus )

This is an example of perception that I believe is most applicable to man and it's mortal life: life IS hard but a man can CHOOSE to be good :)
 

Herbie

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
2,192
I am curious as to how. Being influenced by the same culture they were, I believe I too am maladaptive, and would like to figure out if there are vital abilities I am unaware of.

Maybe look towards what the east says is what a man is, I think the western idea was weak and un sophisticated and that idea has been destroyed now anyway, I think its to do with the inner depths, spirituality, sexuality, less like killer apes and more like angels.

"In an important sense there is only one complete unblushing male in America: a young, married, white, urban, northern, heterosexual Protestant father of college education, fully employed, of good complexion, weight and height, and a recent record in sports." Erving Goffman

Thats all? the 20th century man.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
"Women's aggressiveness shouldn't significantly effect men, as we are larger animals,"
Indeed, you are correct if men's T remains normal, and women's T does not get too high. But when, these days, young men's T is much lower than men's T 30-40 years ago, and women's T has gone up significantly, this is far less clear cut than what you are implying. In reality, it's muddled and becoming more so. This slow motion - but accelerating - inversion of the sexes is taking shape (literally) in their size too. You should google a picture of Madonna's daughter. She has the shoulders of a linebacker or middleweight boxer.

The Gavin McInnes quote reminds me a of a YT video I saw a few weeks ago between a normal looking male Marine and a slightly bulky looking female Marine who claimed she could beat any man in a boxing match. The video showed him knocking her down to the ground (without her getting up anymore) in 2nd or 3rd round, I think. Having done some glove boxing in my high school days, it was very evident to me he never at any point hit her full force and 100%, as he would have with a man. He was careful not to hurt her. A real gentleman. But he put her in her place in the hierarchy of biological reality.



[COLOR=#000000]Women's aggressiveness shouldn't significantly effect men, as we are larger animals, so I assume there is a con going on here.

At some point men were convinced not to use their physical presence as a tool, because it was unfair to women. Those aggressive females you refer to act that way because they know that nearly all men will not use physical violence to defend themselves........no matter what.
[/COLOR]
[B][COLOR=#000000]As Gavin McInnes famously said :[/COLOR][/B]

[I][COLOR=#000000]"Therefore, if you are stuck in a situation where a maniacal female is pounding the crap out of you, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest [B]you can hit her once for every 12 blows she delivers to you.[/B] I’m not saying you punch her in the face, and I’m not saying that her giving you an open-handed slap counts as a “blow.” If she is giving you real man punches that look like they wouldn’t be scoffed at in a boxing ring, take all 12. Don’t even block them. If they get you in the face, take them in the face. Get a black eye. If she’s nailing your ribs, allow them to get bruised. They won’t get broken. Unless she’s a giant, you’re not going to get knocked out, either, so take every hit you get that isn’t in the balls. Make it clear you’re going to fight back after 12. Then, when your body has taken a dozen reasonable hits, give her a solid punch in between her collarbone and her solar plexus. The punch shouldn’t be bone-breaking; it should be bruise-making, and it’s what Jay-Z should have done to Solange if he was alone.

It seems cruel, but it teaches a lesson: If you’re going to play with the big boys, you have to play by big-boy rules. It’s like standing over a kid as he plays with matches. He keeps striking match after match and then gets burned when he touches the phosphorous. As you sit there getting pounded, you’re essentially saying, “You want to experience violence? OK, this is what it is.”[/COLOR]

[URL='https://thoughtcatalog.com/gavin-mcinnes/2014/05/when-is-it-ok-to-hit-a-woman/']When Is It OK To Hit A Woman?[/URL][/I]
 

Jon

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
560
Location
Colorado
"Women's aggressiveness shouldn't significantly effect men, as we are larger animals,"
Indeed, you are correct if men's T remains normal, and women's T does not get too high. But when, these days, young men's T is much lower than men's T 30-40 years ago, and women's T has gone up significantly, this is far less clear cut than what you are implying. In reality, it's muddled and becoming more so. This slow motion - but accelerating - inversion of the sexes is taking shape (literally) in their size too. You should google a picture of Madonna's daughter. She has the shoulders of a linebacker or middleweight boxer.

The Gavin McInnes quote reminds me a of a YT video I saw a few weeks ago between a normal looking male Marine and a slightly bulky looking female Marine who claimed she could beat any man in a boxing match. The video showed him knocking her down to the ground (without her getting up anymore) in 2nd or 3rd round, I think. Having done some glove boxing in my high school days, it was very evident to me he never at any point hit her full force and 100%, as he would have with a man. He was careful not to hurt her. A real gentleman. But he put her in her place in the hierarchy of biological reality.

You really think women's T is going up? (No sarcasm, honest question)
 

theLaw

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
1,403
"Women's aggressiveness shouldn't significantly effect men, as we are larger animals,"
Indeed, you are correct if men's T remains normal, and women's T does not get too high. But when, these days, young men's T is much lower than men's T 30-40 years ago, and women's T has gone up significantly, this is far less clear cut than what you are implying. In reality, it's muddled and becoming more so. This slow motion - but accelerating - inversion of the sexes is taking shape (literally) in their size too. You should google a picture of Madonna's daughter. She has the shoulders of a linebacker or middleweight boxer.

There's still enough of a disparity between male and female strength even with plummeting male T-levels, but you're right that it's headed in a dangerous direction.

My point was that most men just cower to women instead of keeping healthy boundaries. Basically men are allowing women to bully them into submission.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
Yes, I do, though it's one part of the puzzle, not the only one. Note this excerpt on T in women research (my emphasis):

"As you noted in one of your posts there seems to be a manjaw-ification of women. However, actual evidence, besides anecdotal, has not been found, yet.


This TED Talk by Amy Cudy, an associate professor at Harvard University, put me on track of possibly starting to find this evidence.


Your body language may shape who you are


In this talk she presents the ideas from one of her published articles (Carney, Cudy & Yap, 2010) in which she tested the idea of power posing influencing behavioural outcome. The authors not only wanted to show that indeed assuming a specific pose gives rise to a stronger or weaker feeling of power, but they went one step further to actually measure testosterone and cortisol levels in the test subjects. Here is where it gets interesting!



Power posing did positively relate to the feelings of the test subjects and they showed that strong power poses increases the level of testosterone and decreases the level of cortisol, and weak power poses decrease the level of testosterone and increases the level of cortisol in both men and women. From this they conclude that the body can influence the mind through the endrocrine system, as testosterone is linked to power and cortisol to stress. (Before it was only believed, as we know in the community, that assumed psychological frames can create new beliefs and behaviours, eg. faking confidence breeds confidence.)


This got me thinking about the effect of these changes in levels of testosterone in children. One would assume that growing up as a powerful young Man the testosterone level is boosted due to physical behaviour resulting in an Alpha male. But the reverse would also be true. By being controlled/shamed/pussyfied young men will experience a decrease in testosterone resulting in a Beta or worse.



Now if one would apply this logic to young women, as Cudy allows because effects were the same in both male and female test subjects, we can conclude that putting young women in physicaly powerful situations/behaviours it would increase their testosterone levels and vice versa.



One of the goals or outcomes of feminism is that young women are learned to behave and act like men. By displaying this more powerful physical behaviour, following the earlier logic, they will exhibit increased testosterone levels and thus develop more mannish features, like manjaws. Also, by keeping young boys on a leash and not allowing them to physically explore their masculinity their testosterone levels are stunted, resulting in more feminine features. Ultimately leading to a more androgynous society.


One of the criticisms could be that these changes are quite small, but hormonal levels only need a very small change to have large effects, especially in children and over a long time.


By pointing you towards this article I hope to help solve the mystery on why women are turning into men and men into women on a physical level, causing some of the problems that we are seeing as the redpill community."
The Manjaw-ification Of American Women: Science!
The Manjaw-ification Of American Women: Science!


The rest of the article this quoted from weaves together other parts of the puzzle and this one does so also:
The Masculinization Of The Western White Female
The Masculinization Of The Western White Female

You really think women's T is going up? (No sarcasm, honest question)
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
Oh I agree with you, we are not there yet, the disparity remains. But the gap is closing, and maybe faster than we might be thinking now, which are my main points.

You are of course also right about men cowering before women, allowing themselves to be bullied.

There's still enough of a disparity between male and female strength even with plummeting male T-levels, but you're right that it's headed in a dangerous direction.

My point was that most men just cower to women instead of keeping healthy boundaries. Basically men are allowing women to bully them into submission.
 

Blossom

Moderator
Forum Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
11,032
Location
Indiana USA
Yes, I do, though it's one part of the puzzle, not the only one. Note this excerpt on T in women research (my emphasis):

"As you noted in one of your posts there seems to be a manjaw-ification of women. However, actual evidence, besides anecdotal, has not been found, yet.


This TED Talk by Amy Cudy, an associate professor at Harvard University, put me on track of possibly starting to find this evidence.


Your body language may shape who you are


In this talk she presents the ideas from one of her published articles (Carney, Cudy & Yap, 2010) in which she tested the idea of power posing influencing behavioural outcome. The authors not only wanted to show that indeed assuming a specific pose gives rise to a stronger or weaker feeling of power, but they went one step further to actually measure testosterone and cortisol levels in the test subjects. Here is where it gets interesting!



Power posing did positively relate to the feelings of the test subjects and they showed that strong power poses increases the level of testosterone and decreases the level of cortisol, and weak power poses decrease the level of testosterone and increases the level of cortisol in both men and women. From this they conclude that the body can influence the mind through the endrocrine system, as testosterone is linked to power and cortisol to stress. (Before it was only believed, as we know in the community, that assumed psychological frames can create new beliefs and behaviours, eg. faking confidence breeds confidence.)


This got me thinking about the effect of these changes in levels of testosterone in children. One would assume that growing up as a powerful young Man the testosterone level is boosted due to physical behaviour resulting in an Alpha male. But the reverse would also be true. By being controlled/shamed/pussyfied young men will experience a decrease in testosterone resulting in a Beta or worse.



Now if one would apply this logic to young women, as Cudy allows because effects were the same in both male and female test subjects, we can conclude that putting young women in physicaly powerful situations/behaviours it would increase their testosterone levels and vice versa.



One of the goals or outcomes of feminism is that young women are learned to behave and act like men. By displaying this more powerful physical behaviour, following the earlier logic, they will exhibit increased testosterone levels and thus develop more mannish features, like manjaws. Also, by keeping young boys on a leash and not allowing them to physically explore their masculinity their testosterone levels are stunted, resulting in more feminine features. Ultimately leading to a more androgynous society.


One of the criticisms could be that these changes are quite small, but hormonal levels only need a very small change to have large effects, especially in children and over a long time.


By pointing you towards this article I hope to help solve the mystery on why women are turning into men and men into women on a physical level, causing some of the problems that we are seeing as the redpill community."
The Manjaw-ification Of American Women: Science!
The Manjaw-ification Of American Women: Science!


The rest of the article this quoted from weaves together other parts of the puzzle and this one does so also:
The Masculinization Of The Western White Female
The Masculinization Of The Western White Female
From the article:
"High carb, low fat diets are making women more masculine"
That's interesting.
 
OP
Hugh Johnson

Hugh Johnson

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
2,648
Location
The Sultanate of Portugal
Yes, I do, though it's one part of the puzzle, not the only one. Note this excerpt on T in women research (my emphasis):

"As you noted in one of your posts there seems to be a manjaw-ification of women. However, actual evidence, besides anecdotal, has not been found, yet.


This TED Talk by Amy Cudy, an associate professor at Harvard University, put me on track of possibly starting to find this evidence.


Your body language may shape who you are


In this talk she presents the ideas from one of her published articles (Carney, Cudy & Yap, 2010) in which she tested the idea of power posing influencing behavioural outcome. The authors not only wanted to show that indeed assuming a specific pose gives rise to a stronger or weaker feeling of power, but they went one step further to actually measure testosterone and cortisol levels in the test subjects. Here is where it gets interesting!



Power posing did positively relate to the feelings of the test subjects and they showed that strong power poses increases the level of testosterone and decreases the level of cortisol, and weak power poses decrease the level of testosterone and increases the level of cortisol in both men and women. From this they conclude that the body can influence the mind through the endrocrine system, as testosterone is linked to power and cortisol to stress. (Before it was only believed, as we know in the community, that assumed psychological frames can create new beliefs and behaviours, eg. faking confidence breeds confidence.)


This got me thinking about the effect of these changes in levels of testosterone in children. One would assume that growing up as a powerful young Man the testosterone level is boosted due to physical behaviour resulting in an Alpha male. But the reverse would also be true. By being controlled/shamed/pussyfied young men will experience a decrease in testosterone resulting in a Beta or worse.



Now if one would apply this logic to young women, as Cudy allows because effects were the same in both male and female test subjects, we can conclude that putting young women in physicaly powerful situations/behaviours it would increase their testosterone levels and vice versa.



One of the goals or outcomes of feminism is that young women are learned to behave and act like men. By displaying this more powerful physical behaviour, following the earlier logic, they will exhibit increased testosterone levels and thus develop more mannish features, like manjaws. Also, by keeping young boys on a leash and not allowing them to physically explore their masculinity their testosterone levels are stunted, resulting in more feminine features. Ultimately leading to a more androgynous society.


One of the criticisms could be that these changes are quite small, but hormonal levels only need a very small change to have large effects, especially in children and over a long time.


By pointing you towards this article I hope to help solve the mystery on why women are turning into men and men into women on a physical level, causing some of the problems that we are seeing as the redpill community."
The Manjaw-ification Of American Women: Science!
The Manjaw-ification Of American Women: Science!


The rest of the article this quoted from weaves together other parts of the puzzle and this one does so also:
The Masculinization Of The Western White Female
The Masculinization Of The Western White Female
I'm going to ad hominem you and point out that you get your views from white supremacists, who hate women and are at the very least borderline rapists. I think you are exactly the sort of person lacking those "vital abilities" Peat mentioned.
 

Jon

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
560
Location
Colorado
From the article:
"High carb, low fat diets are making women more masculine"
That's interesting.

From the article:

"If you give women a boost of insulin, their testosterone levels don't appear to change, but this is only during the short-term. When women with high insulin are given insulin-lowering drugs and followed up over the long-term, their testosterone levels decline."

The problem with their logic is that high carb low fat diets don't maintain a high level of insulin over time, they actually decrease it in serum. High fat diets on the other hand do produce higher and higher levels of insulin AND carb consumption has actually started to decline in the recent decade yet we're still getting fatter so those calories are coming from fat:

IMG_3174.jpg

The other piece is that acute insulin boosts, once out of serum would immediately correspond with a rise in testosterone past previous baseline IF it were going to raise it at all. I think the article had a decent hypothesis, but I really don't think it holds water. In all likelihood I just think whatever "aggression" we see from women now has MOSTLY to do with psychological influences like what @theLaw suggested and perhaps is also a product of HIGHER estrogen levels:

Aggression in Women: Behavior, Brain and Hormones

“…females…are not passive victims of violence. Rather, they respond to provocation and are active participants in aggressive interactions.” (Richardson, 2005, p. 245)


This study measured how estrogen affected aggression in mice in relation to the length of "daylight" they were exposed to:

Rapid effects of estradiol on male aggression depend on photoperiod in reproductively non-responsive mice

"estradiol injections increased aggression within 15 min in male P. polionotus housed in short days, but had no effect on males housed in long days. These data suggested that estrogens increase aggression in short-day mice by activating nongenomic mechanisms, as it is generally thought that 15 min is insufficient time for changes in estrogen-dependent changes in gene expression to occur"

This would suggest that the normal life of most in western culture which consists of being sequestered inside and mostly existing in darkness (ie non solar light) has a negative epigenetic effect on estrogens influence of character trait in vivo.

This aligns more with my opinion that we're really just seeing estrogen dominance across the board in both men and women.
@Badger
 
Last edited:

Yggr

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2016
Messages
64
From the article:
"High carb, low fat diets are making women more masculine"
That's interesting.
The author may single in on this single dietary point but I think he is missing the bigger picture of dietary change.

The proportion of fat in the diet also became far more unsaturated.

Food additives and fast food that irritate the gut and cause the endotoxin cascade, leading to high estrogen, irritated adrenals secreting DHEA and it’s conversion to androgens.

Greater calorie consumption, increased adiposity, increased estrogen and progesterone being actively blocked by synthetic progestins.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom