New York University psychology professor Eric Knowles and NYU psychology doctoral student Sarah DiMuccio claim that many male Trump supporters feel far more insecure in their own masculinity than they’d have you believe — and they are drawn to Trump’s authoritarian rhetoric because it makes them feel more powerful.
In particular, the researchers found that there was a strong correlation between counties that voted overwhelmingly for Trump and internet searches for topics related to masculine insecurity, including “erectile dysfunction,” “hair loss,” “how to get girls,” “penis enlargement,” “penis size,” “steroids,” “testosterone” and “Viagra.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/trump-appeals-men-suffer-fragile-masculinity-psychologists/
(note: there is a link in there to the story in the Washington Post, but it is behind a paywall.)
Also important to note is that the research found less of a correlation between fragile masculinity and support for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012.
Well, that study will certainly make the leftwing snowflakes feel better when they are screaming at the night sky or coloring in their safe rooms.
Already spewing juvenile insults is a sure sign you have no way to refute the article!
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/trump-appeals-men-suffer-fragile-masculinity-psychologists/
(note: there is a link in there to the story in the Washington Post, but it is behind a paywall.)
Also important to note is that the research found less of a correlation between fragile masculinity and support for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012.
Good. Gooooood. Keep 'em coming. Keep making my point for me. :thumbs:Juvenile insults? Like spelling the presidents name tRump instead of Trump. Is that the kind of juvenile insults your against?
I actually had to see if the article was really as stupid as it sounded, so I read it. Yup. Internet searches county-wide vs. heavy Trump support? Really? The man doesn't give you enough material to attack while still being in the realm of reason and reality?
I think that you will find if you twist the logic just a little bit more that those searches were really done by women trying to figure out why their husbands won't screw them anymore and got too busy to vote for Hillary. Maybe we could look and see if "I heart uggos" was searched more in areas where men voted for Hillary?
High Class name calling is what this is, being fancy about being dicks.
You got 10% of it right.
Already spewing juvenile insults is a sure sign you have no way to refute the article!
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/trump-appeals-men-suffer-fragile-masculinity-psychologists/
(note: there is a link in there to the story in the Washington Post, but it is behind a paywall.)
Also important to note is that the research found less of a correlation between fragile masculinity and support for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012.
It isn't as if this is the first study of its sort, with similar results. https://www.vox.com/2016/11/1/13480416/trump-supporters-sexism (again, for those who would blindly disagree with that article simply because it's Vox, they have a link to the WaPo article)
Hey maybe that's a thing. Feel free to check it out!
you are arguing by proxy. You find some silly hack article and then demand others prove it wrong when you are unable to prove it is correct. Wanna bet who the two people who wrote that swill voted for?
that's really funny because its such BS. I wonder how the military vote lined up in those elections vs say that of men saving up to become women through surgery?
weak.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/trump-appeals-men-suffer-fragile-masculinity-psychologists/
(note: there is a link in there to the story in the Washington Post, but it is behind a paywall.)
Also important to note is that the research found less of a correlation between fragile masculinity and support for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012.
Good. Gooooood. Keep 'em coming. Keep making my point for me. :thumbs:
You have yet to even attempt to refute the article, let alone actually refute it. Come on. Stop firing blanks and actually give the study a shot.
P.S. It's "you're," not "your."
I could barely get through the blatant partisanship in the link you gave and WaPo actually wants me to pay money to read the further link. This feels like I'm reading a Fox article with genders switched.
Look, I certainly have no love for Trump and regularly whine that we were given a choice between buffoonery and hidden corruption last election. At least Trump has never had a hidden thought in his life and all his idiocies are out there to be picked apart. Honestly, I'm amazed we haven't had a major security link from his Twitter account.
This is just too partisan and too much of a stretch and if it's actually true in anyway, counterproductive. If insecurity is really an issue on some level, mocking them sure isn't bringing them around.
No one is convinced by such stretches of logic and so many of them being plastered all over the place actually gets people wondering if there really is some conspiracy against Trump to make him seem dumb. It actually hurts the movement to use such silliness.
Sorry, Turtle: Attorney's games are not going to work for you here. The study is in the linked article, and if there is any reasonable flaw with it, you or anyone else is free to point it out. The correlation is real.
Now I thought you were pro-LGBT. Didn't think you had backtracked/
OK kids, let's recap. We have:
1. An OP that talks about fragile masculinity.
2. A bunch of males posting defensive reactions instead of actually addressing the study in a rational manner.
:shrug:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?