insecure men more likely to support Iraq War

[BVS]

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.

Well that ignores what I said, but oh well. The fact that you mentioned Hitler's was only "on some level" makes me believe you're not quite grasping this. I think Hitler, Napolean, most dictators etc are 95% insecurities starting from childhood.

 

[BVS]

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

Perfect for FYM

and

 

[Dreadsox]

I am secure enough to have realized seconds after reading the thread title...that nothing good would come of it...

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I am secure enough to have realized seconds after reading the thread title...that nothing good would come of it...

Eh, it's been pretty civil so far...hopefully it'll stay that way. My thoughts on the study...I think lots of factors go into why some people support these sorts of things. Insecurity about one's self may be one of the things, but who knows.

*In the meantime, pats 80sU2isBest on the head* Good boy. You have learned well .

Angela

 

[Irvine511]

oh for Pete's sake people, this is supposed to be a somewhat lighthearted thread. read the article -- the study isn't making any sweeping political claims, just showing a correlation between certain proclivities that we can easily (though perhaps not accurately) code as Red State and linked that to a feelings of masculine insecurity.

i do think it's entirley plausible that there are different notions of masculinity between urban and rural America.

but i think we can all agree with absolute certainty that this study proves that Blue State men have much larger penises than Red State men.

 

[LoveTown]

that's right. Democrats have bigger willies!!! It's a fact....really it is.

And that my friends is why this gal will always vote democrat

 

[Dreadsox]

Mine shrunk when I changed my party?

 

[nbcrusader]

oh for Pete's sake people, this is supposed to be a somewhat lighthearted thread. read the article -- the study isn't making any sweeping political claims, just showing a correlation between certain proclivities that we can easily (though perhaps not accurately) code as Red State and linked that to a feelings of masculine insecurity.

i do think it's entirley plausible that there are different notions of masculinity between urban and rural America.

What is lighthearted about sweeping generalizations?

 

[Sherry Darling]

Mine shrunk when I changed my party?

Well, that depends, did you go independent?

 

[LoveTown]

show us yer willy Dread


I cannot believe I just said that...

 

[Dreadsox]

show us yer willy Dread


I cannot believe I just said that...

So you want me to Free Willy....

 

[LoveTown]

ahhhhh I see a red X instead of a pic.

I'm assuming it's a pic of an orca?

 

[deep]

that's right. Democrats have bigger willies!!! It's a fact....really it is.

that is only because they come from poor families....

they did not have any toys to play with when they were little

 

[LoveTown]

hahaha deep!!! That was a beautiful retort

 

[STING2]

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'?

My response "Georgie is a President not a King" was in response to what Irvine has said. My response to your post did not mention anything about a monarchy either.

 

[deep]

Originally posted by Irvine511


i do think it's entirley plausible that there are different notions of masculinity between urban and rural America.

it takes a real man to love his sister as his neighbor

 

[STING2]

Well that ignores what I said, but oh well. The fact that you mentioned Hitler's was only "on some level" makes me believe you're not quite grasping this. I think Hitler, Napolean, most dictators etc are 95% insecurities starting from childhood.

There are things about Hitler's youth which support the insecurity theory, but at the same time, his success as a rising leader and his behavior as a leader would often show unusual levels of self confidence and arrogance that people who are insecure do not have. The same is true for Napolean.

 

[BVS]

his success as a rising leader and his behavior as a leader would often show unusual levels of self confidence and arrogance that people who are insecure do not have. The same is true for Napolean.

This is a common misconception, many experts will tell you that certain insecurities will heighten other attributes and create succesful power hungry individuals. It's compensation.

 

[A_Wanderer]

This is almost as good as the "conservatism is a mental illness" thread.

 

[STING2]

This is a common misconception, many experts will tell you that certain insecurities will heighten other attributes and create succesful power hungry individuals. It's compensation.

So highly self confident people are simply insecure people who have compensated for their insecurities? I can see how arrogance sometimes might be a form of compensation for insecurity but not raw self confidence which is what many of these dictators have displayed.

 

[deep]

There are things about Hitler's youth which support the insecurity theory,

There are things about The Young Republicans or YAFers which support the insecurity theory

 

[STING2]

There are things about The Young Republicans or YAFers which support the insecurity theory

Is it the small willie theory?

 

[BVS]

So highly self confident people are simply insecure people who have compensated for their insecurities? I can see how arrogance sometimes might be a form of compensation for insecurity but not raw self confidence which is what many of these dictators have displayed.

Did you read the original post? It's not insecurity in oneself. It's being insecure about their masculinity, two entirely different things. One can be extremely intelligent, very confident in their occupation etc but aren't secure about their masculinity, and they will compensate for that.

They call it a Napoleon complex for a reason.

 

[STING2]

Did you read the original post? It's not insecurity in oneself. It's being insecure about their masculinity, two entirely different things. One can be extremely intelligent, very confident in their occupation etc but aren't secure about their masculinity, and they will compensate for that.

They call it a Napoleon complex for a reason.

In that case, this theory is even weaker than I thought.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

So you want me to Free Willy....

. That was good, Dread.

Angela

 

[BVS]

In that case, this theory is even weaker than I thought.

I'm pretty sure if this article didn't mention Iraq you wouldn't even be spending so much time debating it.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think it might be interesting to hear how men define masculinity

 

[Irvine511]

So highly self confident people are simply insecure people who have compensated for their insecurities? I can see how arrogance sometimes might be a form of compensation for insecurity but not raw self confidence which is what many of these dictators have displayed.

didn't Hitler only have one testicle?

 

[Irvine511]

What is lighthearted about sweeping generalizations?

not totally sure, but what's turning this thread from lighthearted to funny is some people's total inability to see just how silly they look when constantly looking to be offended and taking seriously links between a simple Cornell psychology study and the formulation of American policy.

besides, we're all missing the issue.

it's not threatened masculinity that led Bush to wave his silly willy at the world in a flightsuit and declare "Mission Accomplished;" but it IS threatened masculinity if you thought that was really cool and awesome.

 

[Irvine511]

interestingly, we have a soldier who appears to agree with the study ...



"I don't want anything to do with [Bush]," [Terry Rogers]] explains. "My belief is that his ego is getting people killed and mutilated for no reason -- just his ego and his reputation. If we really wanted to, we could pull out of Iraq. Maybe not completely but enough that we wouldn't be losing people -- at least not at this rate. So I think he himself is responsible for quite a few American deaths.… Rodgers says he also declined to meet Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice. This wounded soldier has lost faith in his leaders, and he no longer believes their repeated assurances of victory."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/09/AR2005080901441_pf.html