NEWS: Men More Inclined to Support War and Buy SUVs When Masculinity is Challenged

CULTURE: Men More Inclined to Support War and Buy SUVs When Masculinity is Challenged

A recent study performed at Cornell University shows that when a man's masculinity is challenged, his attitude about topics such as war, homosexuals and automobiles is more likely to be changed.

Robb Willer, a researcher who performed the study, surveyed a group of undergraduates to obtain the data.

Thankfully, I was an English major, and all masculinity was beaten out of me through a private education.

What? This is bullshit! I'm going out right now and buying a new Hummer to prove to ALL of you how big my cock is!!!

...because we all know driving an SUV is the absolute height of masculinity...

Small Penis Syndrome. It's the best explantion for pretty much everything.

I don't think a study was needed to tell us
this..most people know someone who fits that
criteria.

Captain Obvious to the rescue!

Reminds of some guy we used to work with. All we had to do to convince him to do something was say "If you were a real man, you'd *insert random thing we wanted him to do here.*

I think the grad student just tailored his research to confirm his intellectualized, preconceived notions.

What I mean is, I wonder if you'd find a sociologist anywhere that had neutral opinions about say, war and SUV's. Let alone positive opinions.

[Edited on Aug 03, 2005 by stockula]

I'd say fuck off to those guys, but I have a cock in my mouth.

Supporting the Iraq war? I'm not surprised. Militance has typically been a yardstick of manhood.

But driving an SUV? Why would having my cock laughed at make me want to waste money on gas?

You're saying what, that he doctored the survey responses he received?

Finally, one step closer to isolating the "SUV Buyer's" gene.

No. How could I know that? But you can see how he's made up his mind beforehand, and probably contrived leading experiments to reach desired conclusions. You dont have to manipulate data if you just select what questions are asked and that lead to desired answers.

This has been seen before, such as as UC Berkeley psychologists performing studies that prove conservative political views are a manifestation of mental illness.

Or that NY Times article by Yale law professors s5 linked to, that posited that conservative, originalist Supreme Court Justices that strictly adhere to the Constitution are the real activists because they more frequently practice judicial review of laws passed by Congress. As opposed to liberal relativists who are happy to legislate and impose law from the bench. In order to reach this conclusion, the authors had to completely change the definition of what is meant by "activist judge".

My overall point is, be careful. The grad student clearly has a point of view that is supportive of homosexual rights and hostile towards war and gas-guzzling vehicles that are perceived as macho and aggressive. That's fine, but also consider: These sentiments are nearly universally held in academia. His paper is going to be reviewed by people holding these same views. A positive review will be the difference between him starting a career in the university or stacking books at Borders or waiting tables. Is he going to challenge the commonly held worldview in the highly subjective and political field of sociology, or take the easy and obvious explanation that the only way anyone could see value in war or SUVs is through weakness and insecurity, putting those who think like you on a mutually-reinforcing, self-congratulatory pedestal?




[Edited on Aug 04, 2005 by stockula]

It's just marketing. If that's the image projected (successfully) in the US for the SUV market, then that's what those sorts of people will glom on to. Do the same sort of survey in a market where SUVs aren't big players, it will just be something else - Ferraris, whatever.

I've heard these same sorts of complaints about Steve Levitt's work with Donohue on abortion and crime. He must have an agenda, right? He must be pro-choice and just trying to find a reason to justify Roe v. Wade using biased research that he must have cooked up somehow.

You have no idea how many times I've heard this.

I would like you to link me to that study, or at least a credible discussion of it.

He "clearly has a pont of view"? You admitted you couldn't know whether or not he'd doctored his responses, but you can somehow mind-read his motivations?



Um, how the fuck did you do that? That's incredible.

Well, I dunno. His conclusions sound like there might be some "biological essentialism" involved. Lots of academics, particularly explicitly left-leaning academics like women's studies professors, are very hostile to the idea of what they think are biological essentialist arguments -- that men and women may behave in any fundamentally different ways because of biological explanations -- like maybe that testosterone fires up male "machismo" in response to challenges.

So this poor little ol' graduate student is likely to have feminist academics on the left criticising him for doing status-quo-reinforcing patriarchal research. And you on the right accusing him of being another liberal anti-war academic.

The irony is ....ironic.

Hey, Photoshop commandos! Can I get an 'Uncle Sam Wants You!' poster with the text changed to 'You have a small penis! Join the Army!'

Let's just all get along and take all the fags and dykes to Iraq and run em' down with Stupid Usless Vehicles to show how tough we really are to the sand people.

Seems to fit the stereotype....

When I sold fireworks, this helped with sales.

If a dude looked to downgrade. I'd say "Yeah, we have those. Over in the girls section."

Worked every time.

[Edited on Aug 04, 2005 10:05AM]

All individual research studies have biases and "preconceived notions"—after all, the very first step is hypothesis—"objective" only exists when researchers independently and subjectively reach the same conclusion—and henceforth the argument of preconceived notions, per se, is rather moot. If the study was designed to guard against confirmation bias and otherwise was methodologically sound, then the researcher’s motives are entirely irrelevant.

Don't we still need to cure cancer and stuff?

Here ya go: