Posted on 05/26/2017 11:48:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: This is a story resulting from a research study at Brunel University in London. “Physically Weak Men More Likely to Be Socialists.” (laughing) What timing! I said, “This is a godsend.” It is a woman that’s writing the story here. “Surprise, surprise. Men who are physically weak are more likely to favor socialist policies. An academic study from researchers at Brunel University London assessed 171 men, looking at their height, weight, overall physical strength and bicep circumference, along with their views on redistribution of wealth and income inequality.
“The study, published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal,” one of my favorite magazines, by the way, right along with Prairie Farmer. The survey “found that weaker men were more likely to favor socialist policies than stronger men. Brunel University’s Michael Price believes this may be a product of evolutionary psychology.” Listen to this. Dr. Price said, “This is about our Stone Age brains, in a modern society. Our minds evolved in environments where strength was a big determinant of success.
“If you find yourself in a body not threatened by other males, if you feel you can win competitions for status, then maybe you start thinking inequality is pretty good.” See how this works? Strong, tough, self-reliant, studly, manly guys don’t believe in equality. You think you have a headline, you think you have a story that may really be on to something and then they totally blow it with their own analysis. Now, this story hit home for me obviously because of the circumstance that happened up there in Montana. But I myself — and I’ve mentioned this before — I imagine a lot of people will not remember me having said it because I didn’t make a big deal of it, didn’t do a whole segment on it.
But I have wondered — Snerdley will back me on this — over the years I have openly wondered out loud here how, honest to God, real men could possibly be liberal. I have never understood it, in a psychological sense. I understand propaganda, brainwashing, environmental influences growing up, the role of parents, teachers and so forth. But throw that stuff out, I have never understood it. It just intellectually, as far as common sense, doesn’t compute with me. And yet it is obviously true.
This story actually looks at it the other way. Rather than how our big, tough strong guys are liberal fascists, they point out that it’s weak and small and Pajama Boy types that are more likely to be socialists. The theory is that because they do not have the confidence born of a powerful personal stature, that they need outside forces fighting their battles for them to ensure that they are not thrown overboard, under the bus. That they’re not beaten up, that they are not bullied and made fun of. So they come along and they support large, forceful, powerful authorities over everybody to equalize things.
And on the other hand, big, strong, manly, studly guys, they gravitate the other way, and they don’t want equality because they already know that they’re bigger, stronger, and more powerful that the wusses out there and they don’t want anybody coming along elevating the wusses to artificial strength and artificial power when they can’t acquire all of that on their own.
“Taking his assessment one step further, Price wanted to factor in gym time to see if he could determine the relationship flow between strength and socialistic leanings. Are men who are naturally strong more inclined to hold capitalistic views, or are men with capitalistic views driven to go to the gym? ‘When Dr. Price factored in time spent in the gym some, but not all, of the link disappeared,’ notes The Times, suggesting there may be something to men with capitalistic views hitting the gym. ‘Of course this isn’t rational in modern environments, where your ability to win might have more to do with where you went to university. Lot of guys who are phenomenally successful in modern societies would probably be nowhere near as successful in hunter gatherer societies,’ added Price.”
Well, we don’t have any hunter gatherer — well, we do, but not here. We’re on the way. If these climate change people win, we’re all gonna be reverting back to that era. So physically weak men more likely to be socialist. You can understand how that headline captivated me on the very day the studly and manly Gianforte threw that dishrag Pajama Boy reporter down to the ground.
Might be a correlation with improper testosterone distribution.
“Well, I don’t get women shaving ‘down there’. Why would you want to look like a 12 year old?”
Because the homosexuals who dominate women’s fashions have a preference for pre-pubescent boys and they’ve managed to convince woman that the new standard of beauty is a flat chested women with a short haircut and who very closely resembles a twelve-year-old boy.
There is actually a very good explanation for this. I am not kidding.
Joh Haidt did extensive research into this.
He found there are 2 different types of people regardless of society, place, time, ect.
It is based on the priorities they give certain moral foundations.
Here is his Ted Talk:
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind
...and what did he say to that woman?! (don’t know who she is)
Weaks Socialist on the left. Strong Social Conservative on the right.
Ha! My husband is also a hairy old guy, but has no, and I mean NO, use for a girl with hairy armpits. that would be a deal breaker.
Megan I thought that “hardwood floor” trend was due to pornography, not homos.
What kind of women like hairless men?
Do they shave their legs and under their arms?
Have you personally known women attracted to polygamy?
I say that I'm a right-wing anarchist.
When asked what's the difference between right-wing and left-wing anarchists, since both apparently don't want government, I reply:
"The Left-anarchist just wants the State to stop protecting private property, so that the mob can grab it all in the name of the People".
"The Right-anarchist wants the State to stop protecting the Left anarchists, so the Right anarchists can shoot them when they try to grab our property".
I believe that is part of it. In those cases often other social factors are in play that impact it. The man/woman ratio, is the guy powerful/a king, etc.
But the overall is that weaker people tend to go along to get along and not make waves and not do anything that will jeopardize their security. Comparing men to women, women are weaker and thus they have developed strategies to maximize their “success” - however they are defining that to be. And these strategies are not direct confrontation or standing up for things. Consequently they are always concerned with what others (ie the group/society/peers) think of them. Because it is tied back to their fear and need for security and acceptance from the group. If the group turns on them and they are out, well, not an outcome a woman would want to think about very long.
Consider that progressive system says that if you make more you should contribute more to the General public “pool” for the poor
But What it does is encourages people to not work and not create excess for the poor...but to take from the general public pool for the poor (rob from the general fund for true needed poor) instead of contribute ...
I say that because I'm physically handicapped yet I Would-be loathe to take from the public fund because I know there's people that are far more disadvantaged then me
I am capable of generating a 6 figure income and be self supporting....and by doing that I'm contributing and not taking from the poor/ public pool.
This was the old mind set...People wanted to help the poor but detested the the idea of being on charity ig they could work...Charity was reserved for the truly in need
The left has taught the opposite ...basically trained people to see what goverment entitlement they can get...what they could take from the system ...The left trains people to be “Anti-progressive”...to be taker from the poor not giver to the poor
Believe it or not, I’ve never had to shave my armpits or my legs. I did sometimes use Nair on my legs which weren’t hairy at all
Nothing but the facts, my friend.
I’m glad someone else if freaked out by the new trend of thinking the anorexic, flat chested woman look is a little creepy.
That’s never been my thing. But give me a Lane Bryant swimsuit magazine or a Mexican Low Rider calendar with those thick Latina women....WOW.
Well duh!
LOL!
With what is going on nowadays, I am about ready to hit the streets and intimidate a few more.
All the better for me. I have no use for beard stubble in certain places. Hey, check out Animatedknots.com. Wonderful site that shows how to tie most any knot. May have a bunch of braids as well. Could be hours of fun.
My Dad used to say about Hungarian women "But they only have little mustaches." That was before Internet pictures!
“Because the homosexuals who dominate women’s fashions have a preference for pre-pubescent boys and they’ve managed to convince woman that the new standard of beauty is a flat chested women with a short haircut and who very closely resembles a twelve-year-old boy.”
Nailed it. And women fall for that. I told one of my grown daughters just the other day to beware any man that likes the completely shaved look. Think pedophile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.