Story Left-Wing Authoritarians are Averse to Masculine Looking Men

[Eremetic]

An extensive evolutionary history has led humans to develop some fairly accurate first impressions of other people from their appearance. Although these inferences could be uncomfortable to some perceivers, an acuity to such kernels of truth could have a benefit to the perceiver. Natural selection would have favored people who could accurately identify individuals who could help keep them safe or provide a chance to reproduce. If someone appears capable of helping you reach your goal, you will feel compelled to approach them. If someone looks like a hindrance to your goals, you may avoid that person at all costs. In my work, we consider facial features that are relatively diagnostic of people’s physical capabilities in combat and how they lead people to consider the pros and cons of a potential bodyguard. Namely, we are interested in how perceivers infer men’s physical strength through these features and the contexts in which choosing to affiliate with these men would be advantageous or a complete.

One physical characteristic of a person that reliably connotes information about one’s physical abilities is sexual dimorphism. Dimorphism refers to the extent to which men appear masculine and women appear feminine through facial and bodily features connoting specific hormonal activities. Testosterone masculinizes facial structures, with men’s faces being particularly wider than women’s, in addition to fostering a “stronger” jawline. Conversely, estrogen feminizes faces, with particularly feminine-appearing women having larger eyes and narrower jawlines. Awareness of these features could help people identify attractive mates while similarly helping perceivers stay aware of the potential costs of individuals with sex-typical features (e.g., masculine men appear more aggressive). In addition to these connotations of good genes is the possibility that people can use these features as heuristics to categorize others into political groups. Other work that have conducted indicates that people use masculinized features in men as a heuristic for their political affiliation. Strong men appear more conservative, which tracks strong men’s actual political beliefs.

These implicit connections between masculinization and conservatism could implicate masculinized men as presenting a heuristic threat to non-conservatives in their attainment of group goals. One such group that has received considerable interest over the past decade relevant to this potential threat judgment is left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), a personality trait indicating the extent to which an individual is interested in disrupting present social hierarchies in favor of one that could better satisfy the goals of left-wing political ideas. In the case of left-wing authoritarians, such goals could include the implementation of redistributive policies as replacements for social policies that emphasize competitive resource acquisition and favor formidable men. The physical advantages that masculinized men would have in conflict would implicate them as especially threatening to the resource acquisition goals of left-wing authoritarians, which could lead to this ideology motivating individuals to dissociate with people who are both dissimilar to them politically and capable of commanding more social capital through competition. Paradoxically, this aversion would be at the expense of having access to potential allies in other kinds of conflict that could see cooperation between strange bedfellows.

Study conducted that considering these possibilities, presented at the Social Science Speakeasy/First SOIBS Conference in Atlanta during SPSP in February. Participants viewed a series of men and women who varied in their appearance and evaluated their fighting ability, political orientation, and the extent to which they would like to collaborate with each individual person on a project. Importantly, these faces were manipulated to exhibit either masculine or feminine dimensions (i.e., sex typicality) based on widely used transformational procedures to create images of what is typical for both sexes. It also assessed individual differences in LWA using a recent (and amazing!) personality inventory.

Unsurprisingly, male faces appeared more formidable, particularly when they were masculinized. This perception corresponded with inferences of masculinized men appearing more conservative. Although LWA had no influence on preferences for female faces, LWA predicted how perceivers would interface with male faces. The data indicated a general pattern of misandry as a function of heightened LWA, but the magnitude of effects was much larger masculinized male faces. In other words, left-wing authoritarians disliked masculine men.

The data speak to a relative conflict between evolved and modern motives that could inform people’s predilections for both team-building and ingroup favoritism. On one hand, strong men can afford protection from threats and enforce group rules to keep everyone happy. On the other hand, these men appear likely more interested in maintaining social structures that favor competitive hierarchies that leftists oppose. It could be the case that this personality trait is especially salient in the current polarized sociopolitical landscape, with individuals feeling the need to engage in contrarianism to assert their social identity as status quo up-enders. It could also be the case that conducting this research with young adults could have made these effects emerge more easily, given that many of my participants were likely in a developmental stage that motivates certain aspects of political activism.

 

[Eremetic]

@Fat Link sticky maybe

 

[StefiBeaLipton]

Sticking my nutz to ur face lul.

 

[weaselbomber]

Interesting read, specifically because historically left-wing authoritarian countries like the Soviet Union and its satellite states valued masculinity and virility. All you have to do is look at their propaganda filled with muscular Chads instead of framcel students

 

[Lonelyus]

Interesting read, specifically because historically left-wing authoritarian countries like the Soviet Union and its satellite states valued masculinity and virility. All you have to do is look at their propaganda filled with muscular Chads instead of framcel students

Weird how the left USA is different tho

 

[Chingaquedito]

An extensive evolutionary history has led humans to develop some fairly accurate first impressions of other people from their appearance. Although these inferences could be uncomfortable to some perceivers, an acuity to such kernels of truth could have a benefit to the perceiver. Natural selection would have favored people who could accurately identify individuals who could help keep them safe or provide a chance to reproduce. If someone appears capable of helping you reach your goal, you will feel compelled to approach them. If someone looks like a hindrance to your goals, you may avoid that person at all costs. In my work, we consider facial features that are relatively diagnostic of people’s physical capabilities in combat and how they lead people to consider the pros and cons of a potential bodyguard. Namely, we are interested in how perceivers infer men’s physical strength through these features and the contexts in which choosing to affiliate with these men would be advantageous or a complete.

View attachment 951395

One physical characteristic of a person that reliably connotes information about one’s physical abilities is sexual dimorphism. Dimorphism refers to the extent to which men appear masculine and women appear feminine through facial and bodily features connoting specific hormonal activities. Testosterone masculinizes facial structures, with men’s faces being particularly wider than women’s, in addition to fostering a “stronger” jawline. Conversely, estrogen feminizes faces, with particularly feminine-appearing women having larger eyes and narrower jawlines. Awareness of these features could help people identify attractive mates while similarly helping perceivers stay aware of the potential costs of individuals with sex-typical features (e.g., masculine men appear more aggressive). In addition to these connotations of good genes is the possibility that people can use these features as heuristics to categorize others into political groups. Other work that have conducted indicates that people use masculinized features in men as a heuristic for their political affiliation. Strong men appear more conservative, which tracks strong men’s actual political beliefs.

These implicit connections between masculinization and conservatism could implicate masculinized men as presenting a heuristic threat to non-conservatives in their attainment of group goals. One such group that has received considerable interest over the past decade relevant to this potential threat judgment is left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), a personality trait indicating the extent to which an individual is interested in disrupting present social hierarchies in favor of one that could better satisfy the goals of left-wing political ideas. In the case of left-wing authoritarians, such goals could include the implementation of redistributive policies as replacements for social policies that emphasize competitive resource acquisition and favor formidable men. The physical advantages that masculinized men would have in conflict would implicate them as especially threatening to the resource acquisition goals of left-wing authoritarians, which could lead to this ideology motivating individuals to dissociate with people who are both dissimilar to them politically and capable of commanding more social capital through competition. Paradoxically, this aversion would be at the expense of having access to potential allies in other kinds of conflict that could see cooperation between strange bedfellows.

Study conducted that considering these possibilities, presented at the Social Science Speakeasy/First SOIBS Conference in Atlanta during SPSP in February. Participants viewed a series of men and women who varied in their appearance and evaluated their fighting ability, political orientation, and the extent to which they would like to collaborate with each individual person on a project. Importantly, these faces were manipulated to exhibit either masculine or feminine dimensions (i.e., sex typicality) based on widely used transformational procedures to create images of what is typical for both sexes. It also assessed individual differences in LWA using a recent (and amazing!) personality inventory.


View attachment 951397

Unsurprisingly, male faces appeared more formidable, particularly when they were masculinized. This perception corresponded with inferences of masculinized men appearing more conservative. Although LWA had no influence on preferences for female faces, LWA predicted how perceivers would interface with male faces. The data indicated a general pattern of misandry as a function of heightened LWA, but the magnitude of effects was much larger masculinized male faces. In other words, left-wing authoritarians disliked masculine men.


View attachment 951398


The data speak to a relative conflict between evolved and modern motives that could inform people’s predilections for both team-building and ingroup favoritism. On one hand, strong men can afford protection from threats and enforce group rules to keep everyone happy. On the other hand, these men appear likely more interested in maintaining social structures that favor competitive hierarchies that leftists oppose. It could be the case that this personality trait is especially salient in the current polarized sociopolitical landscape, with individuals feeling the need to engage in contrarianism to assert their social identity as status quo up-enders. It could also be the case that conducting this research with young adults could have made these effects emerge more easily, given that many of my participants were likely in a developmental stage that motivates certain aspects of political activism.

I would expect the opposite, I thought that masculine looking men were the result of sexual selection and dimorphism.

The less masculine ones, on the contrary, would be the result of women's oppression and their right to choose a mate, that's why the ugly ones would breed and their children would be uglier and uglier and sexual dimorphism would be less noticeable.

in this sense, the ugly ones would be more interested in maintaining a system of female oppression that would allow equality in the sexual market for all men.

 

[NorthernWind]

I'm too low IQ to understand.
However, what if dominant male starts bullying a weak framecel and everyone laughs.
And Stacy chooses dominant male as her mate and protector but framecel returns with a knife and puts dominant normgroid bully scum six feet under?
These dominant bodyguards aren't prepared to deal with a psycho ready to kill them without hesitation.

 

[Darth_Homosexualis]

You don't think that this hypothesis cuts both ways and implicates right wing authoritarianism just as much as it does LWA as you call it? Consider the ideological precepts of National Socialism or even Fascism more generally which consistently extol the virtues of masculine strength, virility and martial prowess. Nazi propaganda was infatuated with the concept of the Aryan ubermensch, blonde haired and blue eyes male who contrasted diametrically with the jewish archetypes created by the sort of crude caricatures found in Der Strumer. Also, what instances would you cite beyond that of a certain aesthetically contrived variant of Soviet propaganda to vindicate these suppositions? I don't see much evidence of this in what might be termed other LWA states such as East Germany, Venezuela under Chavez, Nicaragua, Romania under Ceaușescu or Yugoslavia under Tito. Also, did this come from a scholarly journal article or did you publish it yourself?

 

[Eremetic]

You don't think that this hypothesis cuts both ways and implicates right wing authoritarianism just as much as it does LWA as you call it? Consider the ideological precepts of National Socialism or even Fascism more generally which consistently extol the virtues of masculine strength, virility and martial prowess. Nazi propaganda was infatuated with the concept of the Aryan ubermensch, blonde haired and blue eyes male who contrasted diametrically with the jewish archetypes created by the sort of crude caricatures found in Der Strumer. Also, what instances would you cite beyond that of a certain aesthetically contrived variant of Soviet propaganda to vindicate these suppositions? I don't see much evidence of this in what might be termed other LWA states such as East Germany, Venezuela under Chavez, Nicaragua, Romania under Ceaușescu or Yugoslavia under Tito. Also, did this come from a scholarly journal article or did you publish it yourself?

I can reduce prejudice toward physical differences oftentimes overlooked in prevalent models of behavioral sciences that are no less informative to social perceptions, particularly those with meaningful consequences (i.e., health disparities in men). The benefits of formidable allies are likely apparent to perceivers, but the costs may have greater salience unless they are forced to make difficult choices. Are there any social roles theorists in the foxholes of ancestral necessity? It’s an empirical question that we are all too eager to answer!

Also please read the article in full.

I'm talking modern LWA also keep in mind language is ever changing.

But to answer your sophisticated question



In Nazi Germany, masculinity was systematically promoted through official policy and propaganda from the earliest days in power. Groups like the Hitler Youth and SS explicitly aimed to cultivate physically dominant, militaristic males as the mold for German manhood.

Comparatively, while Stalin heavily purged Soviet society after WW2 and consolidated a dictatorial cult, the USSR had undergone decades of promoting gender equality as a Marxist-Leninist doctrinal aim. Masculine archetypes were not the subject of dedicated propaganda campaigns aiming to normalize social hierarchies as in Germany.

Other LWA nations presented even less evidence of state-sanctioned efforts to cultivate hypermasculine nationalism. In Yugoslavia under Tito, pan-ethnic brotherhood was emphasized and nationalism eschewed. Gender norms remained traditionally conservative but were not mechanisms for state glory or scapegoating minorities.

Similar dynamics held in Romania, where Ceausescu's policy of national self-determination aimed to cultivate loyalty to his nationalist figurehead status rather than propagating masculinist constructs. Propaganda emphasized industrialization over military masculinity.

While Chavez's Venezuela advocated a militant form of Bolivarian socialism, state rhetoric centered around militancy against US imperialism rather than extolling culturally intrinsic male qualities. Gender biases remained societal issues not enshrined in official guiding ideologies.

In short, the historical evidence indicates masculinity served fundamentally different purposes and enjoyed far lesser degrees of institutionalized promotion across LWA regimes versus the case of Nazi Germany, where it was a core tenet of national rebirth since the Nazi rise to power in 1933. A fact-based analysis weighs against reflexive equivalence.



Allow me to provide a more robust academic response to this argument:

The central hypothesis promotes apolitically reductionsit understanding of complex historical phenomena that fails under epistemological scrutiny. Conflating authoritarian populism with leftist movements exemplifies false equivalence logical fallacy.

Equating fascism/Nazism's debased ethnocentric propaganda with deeper structural analyses of political economies like Marxism-Leninism neglects crucial ideational divergences. While some regimes coopted left rhetoric, dogmatic readings ignore field evidence of lived realities, like Yugoslav workers' self-management challenging teleological statism.

Further, deterministically linking governmental 'aesthetics' with sociocultural gender norms lacks nuanced theoretic grounding. PerFORMATive representations symbolize normative ideals yet tell us little about quotidian relations beyond state apparatus. Abundant scholarship illustrates diverse struggles' gendered intricacies.

Methodologically, comparative case selection impedes inferring broader generalizations. East Germany hardly typifies socialism given postwar circumscription. Venezuelan/Nicaraguan hybridity confound orthodox readings.Ceaușescu's cult likewise hardly represented Romanian exceptionalism.

Finally, evidentiary standards remain insufficiently rigorous. Where are qualitative analyses of propaganda content? How do supposed 'equivalences' statistically correlate across spatial-temporal contexts? What alternate theoretical frames address sociopolitical/economic determinants of cultural production?

In conclusion, absolutist political reductions undermine comprehensive understandings contingent on interdisciplinary sensitivity to history's irreducible complexity. While thoughtful discussion elevates discourse, assertions demanding assent require more rigorous theoretical grounding and evidence to withstand intellectually robust scrutiny. Nuanced analysis considers structural contingency instead of ossifying reductionist generalizations.

While fascist/Nazi iconography certainly aggrandized ethnocentric stereotypes, likening such debased propaganda qualitatively or quantitatively to variegated leftist movements across time/space remains an epistemological overreach absent nuanced qualification. Conflating ideological aesthetics obscures material diversities in governance praxis, as your Yugoslavia example demonstrated.

Further, demarcating gender representation solely through the Nazi lens ignores intersecting socioeconomic determinants. As postcolonial scholarship shows, anti-imperial struggles often reconceptualized masculinity as empowerment against, not domination of, "others."

Methodologically, comparative case selection presents challenges to generalization. The Czechoslovak exception aside, available historiography on the Sandinistas or Chavistas, for example, suggests a more multidimensional reality than simplistic reduction to Utopian "aesthetics."

Most problematically, claiming symmetrical propagandistic impacts without qualitative/quantitative analysis of said propaganda's divergent contents, reception contexts, and relations to lived experience fails the standards of evidentiary rigor expected in serious debate. Correlation cannot be presumed without isolating potentially spurious variables.

You raise an insightful point worthy of nuanced consideration. Upon closer analysis, however, certain deficiencies in the hypothesis warrant acknowledgement.

Firstly, the argument engages in anelide abstraction, attributing unduly symmetrical ideological valences without acknowledging political theories' complex historical situatedness. While fascist/Nazi regimes certainly aggrandized noxious ethnocentric tropes, discarding structural divergences between nationalist corporatism and transnational socialist movements risks reification.

Secondly, the proposition elides how representational semiotics operate dialogically with social semiosis, producing heterogeneous signification across spatial-temporal locales. To deductively infer isomorphic sociocultural gender dynamics from authoritarian "aesthetics" alone neglects intersectional interactions constituting lived experience.

The Czechoslovak case aside, diverse evidence suggests post-colonial and Eurocommunist states manifestational dynamics evaded statist teleology.

 

[whatwhywhen]

Interesting read, it's not so much so that women would pick a formidable partner over a frail looking one as a bodyguard(women know men would almost never attack them, they're fearless and constantly exercise social dominance over men without repercussions), but rather as a man who is capable of extracting resources from other men through intrasexual competition and giving those resources to her in the end. Hence why they love when some men are put through suffering and are dominated before their very eyes, intrasexual competition victors arouse them

 

[Eremetic]

Interesting read, it's not so much so that women would pick a formidable partner over a frail looking one as a bodyguard(women know men would almost never attack them, they're fearless and constantly exercise social dominance over men without repercussions), but rather as a man who is capable of extracting resources from other men through intrasexual competition and giving those resources to her in the end. Hence why they love when some men are put through suffering and are dominated before their very eyes, intrasexual competition victors arouse them

The presence of competition in hunting-and-gathering societies is shown by the fights that occurred in some of them. See for example Coon, Hunting Peoples, pages 238, 252, 257–58. If a physical fight isn’t a form of competition, then nothing is.

Fights may arise from competition for mates. For instance, Turnbull, Wayward Servants, pages 206, mentions a woman who lost three teeth in fighting with another woman over a man.


The Hunting People,page 255. Among some Australian tribes, young women were forced to marry old men, mainly so that they should work for the men. Women who refused were beaten until they gave in


page 128. “A woman is subservient to her husband.” Holmberg, page 125. “The extended family is generally dominated by the oldest active male.” Page 129. “[W]omen [...] are dominated by the men.” Page 147. “Sexual advances are generally made by the men. [...] If a man is out in the forest alone with a woman he may throw her to the ground roughly and take his prize without so much saying a word.” Page 163. Parents definitely prefer to have male children. Page 202. Also see pages 148, 156, 168–69, 210, 224.


Source: The Hunting Peoples


So in conclusion it's biology/epigenetics

 

[whatwhywhen]

The presence of competition in hunting-and-gathering societies is shown by the fights that occurred in some of them. See for example Coon, Hunting Peoples, pages 238, 252, 257–58. If a physical fight isn’t a form of competition, then nothing is.

Fights may arise from competition for mates. For instance, Turnbull, Wayward Servants, pages 206, mentions a woman who lost three teeth in fighting with another woman over a man.


The Hunting People,page 255. Among some Australian tribes, young women were forced to marry old men, mainly so that they should work for the men. Women who refused were beaten until they gave in


page 128. “A woman is subservient to her husband.” Holmberg, page 125. “The extended family is generally dominated by the oldest active male.” Page 129. “[W]omen [...] are dominated by the men.” Page 147. “Sexual advances are generally made by the men. [...] If a man is out in the forest alone with a woman he may throw her to the ground roughly and take his prize without so much saying a word.” Page 163. Parents definitely prefer to have male children. Page 202. Also see pages 148, 156, 168–69, 210, 224.


Source: The Hunting Peoples


So in conclusion it's biology/epigenetics

Definitely true in mentioned cases through out history, so a bodyguard would be a neat bonus for a woman.

 

[Eremetic]

Definitely true in mentioned cases through out history, so a bodyguard would be a neat bonus for a woman.

Yup it's also part of nature as well the whole ' muh alpha male ' thing has truth to it. Females are flawed by nature so for me it's pointless talking about them. Anyways enjoy this edit.

 

[Eremetic]

Definitely true in mentioned cases through out history, so a bodyguard would be a neat bonus for a woman.

You look like a good GRey. If you want my advice, you give this shit up. If not then work hard, screw over everybody that you love, hurt, lie indiscriminately and maybe...just maybe, if you're lucky, you get to officer status like me.

 

[Newton the 2nd]

Leftists are the biggest fags indeed

 

[Buried Alive 2.0]

Interesting read, specifically because historically left-wing authoritarian countries like the Soviet Union and its satellite states valued masculinity and virility. All you have to do is look at their propaganda filled with muscular Chads instead of framcel students

They are the exception. Masculine men tend to value freedom and tradition while women (and feminine men) want someone to take care of them.

 

[Eremetic]

You don't think that this hypothesis cuts both ways and implicates right wing authoritarianism just as much as it does LWA as you call it? Consider the ideological precepts of National Socialism or even Fascism more generally which consistently extol the virtues of masculine strength, virility and martial prowess. Nazi propaganda was infatuated with the concept of the Aryan ubermensch, blonde haired and blue eyes male who contrasted diametrically with the jewish archetypes created by the sort of crude caricatures found in Der Strumer. Also, what instances would you cite beyond that of a certain aesthetically contrived variant of Soviet propaganda to vindicate these suppositions? I don't see much evidence of this in what might be termed other LWA states such as East Germany, Venezuela under Chavez, Nicaragua, Romania under Ceaușescu or Yugoslavia under Tito. Also, did this come from a scholarly journal article or did you publish it yourself?

Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin.

It's important to understand that when I talk about leftism I mean mean someone who sympathizes with these MOVEMENTS as they exist today in our society. One who believes that women, homosexuals, etc., should have equal rights is not necessary a leftist. is important to understand that we mean someone who sympathizes with these MOVEMENTS as they exist today in our society. One who believes that women, homosexuals, etc., should have equal rights is not necessary a leftist. The feminist, gay rights, etc., movements that exist in our society have the particular ideological tone that characterizes leftism, and if one believes, for example, that women should have equal rights it does not necessarily follow that one must sympathize with the feminist movement as it exists today.

 

[Eremetic]

Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin.

It's important to understand that when I talk about leftism I mean mean someone who sympathizes with these MOVEMENTS as they exist today in our society. One who believes that women, homosexuals, etc., should have equal rights is not necessary a leftist. is important to understand that we mean someone who sympathizes with these MOVEMENTS as they exist today in our society. One who believes that women, homosexuals, etc., should have equal rights is not necessary a leftist. The feminist, gay rights, etc., movements that exist in our society have the particular ideological tone that characterizes leftism, and if one believes, for example, that women should have equal rights it does not necessarily follow that one must sympathize with the feminist movement as it exists today.

It’s quite true that many leftists, possibly even a numerical majority, are decent people My remarks about leftism are not meant to apply to every individual leftist but to describe the general character of leftism as a movement. And the general character of a movement is not necessarily determined by the numerical proportions of the various kinds of people involved in the movement.

 

[AsiaCel]

Interesting read, specifically because historically left-wing authoritarian countries like the Soviet Union and its satellite states valued masculinity and virility. All you have to do is look at their propaganda filled with muscular Chads instead of framcel students

Funny because there's a difference between today's 'leftism' and state capitalist 'leftism' back then. China would be considered pretty right wing if we look at the economic view.

Perhaps they referring to SJWs?

 

[Thaway]

I would expect the opposite, I thought that masculine looking men were the result of sexual selection and dimorphism.

The less masculine ones, on the contrary, would be the result of women's oppression and their right to choose a mate, that's why the ugly ones would breed and their children would be uglier and uglier and sexual dimorphism would be less noticeable.

in this sense, the ugly ones would be more interested in maintaining a system of female oppression that would allow equality in the sexual market for all men.

This is it. Chads do not benefit from a patriachical system.

 

[Eremetic]

Funny because there's a difference between today's 'leftism' and state capitalist 'leftism' back then. China would be considered pretty right wing if we look at the economic view.

Perhaps they referring to SJWs?

The discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. I leave open the question of the extent to which this discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

 

[Cybersex is our hope]

I would expect the opposite, I thought that masculine looking men were the result of sexual selection and dimorphism.

The less masculine ones, on the contrary, would be the result of women's oppression and their right to choose a mate, that's why the ugly ones would breed and their children would be uglier and uglier and sexual dimorphism would be less noticeable.

in this sense, the ugly ones would be more interested in maintaining a system of female oppression that would allow equality in the sexual market for all men.

Exactly. Extreme masculine chads have no problems slaying foids. Less masculine men need a good patriarchy to be loved and to have loyal wives

 

[based_meme]

I'm too low IQ to understand.

Low T, left-wing soyboys with an authoritarian personality don't like masculine men and view them as politically conservative.