insecure men more likely to support Iraq War

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,521
Location
the West Coast
Men overcompensate when their masculinity is threatened, Cornell study shows
By Daniel Aloi


ITHACA, N.Y. -- Threaten a man's masculinity and he will assume more macho attitudes, according to a study by a Cornell University researcher.

"I found that if you made men more insecure about their masculinity, they displayed more homophobic attitudes, tended to support the Iraq War more and would be more willing to purchase an SUV over another type of vehicle," said Robb Willer, a sociology doctoral candidate at Cornell. Willer is presenting his findings Aug. 15 at the American Sociological Association's 100th annual meeting in Philadelphia.

"Masculine overcompensation is the idea that men who are insecure about their masculinity will behave in an extremely masculine way as compensation. I wanted to test this idea and also explore whether overcompensation could help explain some attitudes like support for war and animosity to homosexuals," Willer said.

Willer administered a gender identity survey to a sample of male and female Cornell undergraduates in the fall of 2004. Participants were randomly assigned to receive feedback that their responses indicated either a masculine or a feminine identity. While women's responses were unchanged regardless of the feedback they received, men's reactions "were strongly affected by this feedback," Willer said.

"Masculinity-threatened men also reported feeling more ashamed, guilty, upset and hostile than did masculinity-confirmed men," states Willer's report, "Overdoing Gender: Testing the Masculine Overcompensation Thesis."

"The masculine overcompensation thesis has its roots in Freudian psychology, but it has become a popularly accepted idea that I felt should be empirically tested and evaluated," Willer said.

He questioned subjects about their political attitudes, including how they felt about a same-sex marriage ban and their support for President Bush's handling of the Iraq War.

"I created composites from subjects' answers to these and other questions," he said. "I also gave subjects a car-buying vignette, presented as part of a study of purchasing a new car."

Masculinity-threatened participants also showed more interest in buying an SUV. "There were no increases for other types of cars," Willer said.

The study produced "the predicted results," he said. "The intention of the study was to explore whether masculine overcompensation exists and where. But the point isn't to suggest these are the only factors that can explain these behaviors. Likewise, there may be a wide variety of other behaviors that could increase when men are concerned about their levels of masculinity."

In a separate study, Willer verified that support for the Iraq War, homophobia and interest in purchasing an SUV were all considered masculine by study participants.

Willer said he and a colleague are planning additional research on subjects' attitudes regarding violence toward women, using the same method for manipulating masculine insecurity.

"I'm planning another follow-up to the study that involves taking testosterone samples from participants to see if testosterone levels are a mediating factor in this process," he added.

The research involved 111 Cornell undergraduates and was funded by the Department of Sociology at Cornell.



http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Aug05/soc.gender.dea.html
 
can i get a huge "Duh" from the crowd?

also, strikes me as further proof that Bush's "Mission Accomplished" flight suit was totally stuffed.

though i bet only Condi was allowed to strategically place that sock.

;)
 
I don't know, that seems like a bunch of stereotypes to me

I don't know exactly what constitutes "masculinity"..hasn't that all evolved and changed?

If I understood men I might have a better idea about all of this :wink:
 
don't try to understand men. Just when you think you have them all figured out they will go and do something that baffles you.

Just do what I do. Nod and smile and agree with them. Then when they walk off do everything your way.
 
LoveTown said:
don't try to understand men. Just when you think you have them all figured out they will go and do something that baffles you.

Just do what I do. Nod and smile and agree with them. Then when they walk off do everything your way.

Hey, that's exactly how we men have learned to respond to women, except that we always wind up doing everything their way.
 
80sU2isBest said:


Hey, that's exactly how we men have learned to respond to women, except that we always wind up doing everything their way.


smart! Men that do that are keepers!!
 
i remember an observation from when i was trying so hard to be straight:

"All Women are Confused; All Men are Stupid."
 
I think when dealing with the opposite sex, people (regardless of gender) spend much of their time confused.
 
Irvine511 said:
i remember an observation from when i was trying so hard to be straight:

"All Women are Confused; All Men are Stupid."

A straight male psychotherapist told me over dinner one night (at a work dinner) that in his years of psychotherapy he had learned two things about men and women: "women are a little crazy, and men are a little stupid." I think it was the word "little" that softened the blow, lol.
 
joyfulgirl said:


A straight male psychotherapist told me over dinner one night (at a work dinner) that in his years of psychotherapy he had learned two things about men and women: "women are a little crazy, and men are a little stupid." I think it was the word "little" that softened the blow, lol.



i do think it's true.

women think they should want something that they don't want; and men don't know that they want what they want.
 
For folks interested in exploring this connection--it's actually been quite well doumented (the link between partriarchy and war). Anyone else read [i[Violence[/i] by Dr. James Gilligan?
 
While it may be true on an individual level, that violence is often committed by insecure individuals, this has nothing remotely to do with the making of US Foreign Policy or one's political views.
 
STING2 said:
While it may be true on an individual level, that violence is often committed by insecure individuals, this has nothing remotely to do with the making of US Foreign Policy or one's political views.


Georgie wasn't trying to impress Poppy?
 
STING2 said:
this has nothing remotely to do with the making of US Foreign Policy or one's political views.

I don't think anyone can say it has "nothing remotely to do". You admit it may be true on the individual level. Then how does a collective of individuals negate that? You have a large collection of domino effects created of many individuals who are affected by this.
 
80sU2isBest said:


Hey, that's exactly how we men have learned to respond to women, except that we always wind up doing everything their way.

Quite smart of you.:wink:
 
STING2 said:
While it may be true on an individual level, that violence is often committed by insecure individuals, this has nothing remotely to do with the making of US Foreign Policy or one's political views.

So is it just that it has nothing to do specifically with US foreign policy, or do all countries enjoy this remarkable ability to entirely separate personal insecurites of their leaders and/or elements of their populaces from the making of their foreign policies? Or is it just the countries that meet with your specific approval?

As a matter of interest, would you agree that Adolf Hitler was an insecure individual, and if so, would you agree that this factor sometimes influenced his political decisions/views? Or not?
 
Last edited:
financeguy said:


So is it just that it has nothing to do specifically with US foreign policy, or do all countries enjoy this remarkable ability to entirely separate personal insecurites of their leaders and/or elements of their populaces from the making of their foreign policies? Or is it just the countries that meet with your specific approval?

As a matter of interest, would you agree that Adolf Hitler was an insecure individual, and if so, would you agree that this factor sometimes influenced his political decisions/views? Or not?

It has nothing to do specifically with US foreign policy, because there are simply to many factors that go into formulating policy in the United States to allow a single individuals insecurities to effect things.

I would agree that on some levels Hitler was insecure and this may have impacted some of his decisions. In a dictatorship, the policy making process almost always starts with the dictator and ends with the dictator. At the same time Hitler often displayed an unusual level of self confidence and many would argue that this is why Germany lost the war. Had Hitler had a little more anxiety and doubt towards his battle plans that sometimes conflicted with his Generals idea's, he may have listened to them more.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I don't think anyone can say it has "nothing remotely to do". You admit it may be true on the individual level. Then how does a collective of individuals negate that? You have a large collection of domino effects created of many individuals who are affected by this.

There are simply to many factors that go into formulating foreign policy in the United States to allow a single individuals insecurities to effect things.
 
Irvine511 said:



Georgie wasn't trying to impress Poppy?

Georgie is a President not a King. There are to many factors that go in to making US foreign policy to allow a single individuals insecurities to effect things on that level.

Georgie took up the Iraq policy where Clinton had left off.
 
Could this fall into the same line of political thought where you use a study to belittle your political opponent?

Before the election, we saw "studies" that suggested Democrats were better educated, etc. than their Republican counterparts.

So, we get a cute "study" to say "real men" do not support the war.

Perfect for FYM
 
STING2 said:
Georgie is a President not a King.

Isn't it just a doggone remarkable coincidence that Bush sr's son also became the leader of the free world?

Just imagine it, a man becomes US President. Then 12 years later, his son emerges as the best and seemingly most qualified candidate.

It would be like Michelangelo having a son - who, as though by a miracle, ALSO became a world renowned artist!

Imagine if Bono's son grew up to also be a lead singer in the biggest rock band in the world. Wouldn't that be really implausible?

As I said, remarkable.

Did anyone mention 'monarchy'? :wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom