In news that will surprise absolutely no one, a new study reveals that girly men are more likely to favor socialist policies. The study, conducted by researchers at Brunel University London, looked at the height, weight, physical strength, and bicep circumference of 171 men, along with their views on wealth redistribution and income inequality.
The study, published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, found that weaker men were more likely to favor socialist policies than stronger men.
Other urls found in this thread:
google.ca
ehbonline.org
andrewgelman.com
usacac.army.mil
twitter.com
haha i knew liberals were pussys but now there is proof.
John Wayne is the goat
Check'd
You should listen to DREAMCAR, from the lead singer of AFI and the bassist from No Doubt. Just saying.
4 4's.....
quads of truth.
Honestly, i'd attribute this type of finding to stronger men, believe that they'd be able to provide for themselves, and their families... whereas weaker men, lacking that confidence, would be more likely to value the states offering of help/support.
Dis man speaks da truth
The top right fag could even fit in Rosie's place... Thats how it is now
I got dubs so give it a try eh?
Or Bruce Jenner
Most lefty liberal cucks can't even bench their own weight.
I know I'm taking the bait, but your pic really pisses me off. You compare two attractive movie stars to two degenerates and call that "evidence." I d0'm not a fan of liberal cultural standards, and I'm pretty sure this meme is a joke, but this sort of trend of using tiny amounts of cherrypicked material and calling it evidence is getting out of hand, especially since many people who see it are dumb enough to believe it. Sad!
You're just a liberal cuck snowflake fag. Time stamp a pic of yourselves so I can see your physical body. I bet you're a skinny lanky leftist socialist thunder cunt.
it was the only picture i had that represented pussy liberals. If you can send me a picture of yourself i would gladly use that instead.
You probably look like Rosie faggot
Because if you don't have big muscles you aren't a REAL man.
Actually I'm a moderate conservative. I just dislike the flimsy evidence that's hailed as truth in the current political climate
Finally proof you're a pussy
Link to the study?
You're a moderate faggot.
Google it you dumb fuck. Too autistic?
*laughs at you*
>getting baited this hard by cherry picking 12 year old troll
Welcome new friend!
I was just using the picture as an example
Usually, when people cite studies on Sup Forums, they include the link to save everyone else the trouble of Googling it. It's just a matter of common courtesy, but I understand how hard it can be to copy paste from the address bar. Sorry if I expected too much from you.
Youre completely missing the point, faggot.
Men back in the day were men, men who worked for a living, were tough, had values.
Now, men are literally women, fucking effeminate limp wristed sissies that cry about everything because everything triggers them so they have to pet trauma dogs and cope by playing with play doh.
I can go in on women but you get what I mean.
You think John Wayne or anyone from that generation would get triggered into PTSD of you called him a fag? Of course not, he'd smooth you the fuck our with a right cross to the noggin.
it is hard because Sup Forums will say its spam and not let you post it.
>studies reveal insecure people are insecure
SCIENCE!
.....Rosie O'Donnell is a woman?
Learn something new every day...
*out
hue
Here's a link to the actual study, since OP was too lazy to post it:
I'm not trying to argue against that point, I just dislike the decrease in the quality of evidence thrown around
In case you're wondering, the study suggests a negative correlation between attractiveness and formidability and support for egalitarianism. Not, as OP said, socialism.
Why would you do that, OP? Just go on the internet and tell lies?
Back in what day? What era exactly are you talking about?
>the decrease in the quality of evidence thrown around
The quality has stayed the same, youre just falling deeper into degeneracy
Do you not know when John Wayne lived?
When they use the word egalitarianism, they are camouflaging liberal/socialist type views.
FACT: literally all men back then looked like John Wayne in hollywood makeup and costume and behaved like he did portraying his one-dimensional movie characters.
FACT: literally all women back then were beautiful and thin and weighed down in makeup.
I do like the idea that adult women back in the 40s and 50s were totally not all thick as fuck because everyone ate fatty food at every meal and never exercised. That's funny.
He lived in the 1800s, duh. That's why he's always dressed as a Sears-Brand Cowboy.
Food back in the day was way fattier than now. They took out the fat and added sugar and carbs due to some Fed studies and it made people balloon up for we now know are obvious reasons. Also labor was actually labor intensive.
Wrong, you stupid fuck, he's from 3068.
Please educate yourself.
So... let me get this straight. You're using an actor as your model for an entire generation of men?
By that logic, all the men of this generation are just like Chris Evans. So it looks like you've got nothing to worry about.
What in the fucking world are you trying to say? It came out as gibberish.
>Back in what day?
Begging of human existence to about the year 2000.
That's the bitch line.
Your standard for masculinity is literally big muscles? What are you, six years old?
people who don't support socialism never age past puberty
it's middle school playground logic all the way down
I'm talking about masculinity, not socialism. Please pay attention.
ITT: fat virgin alt left atheists trying to feel superior
We get it you're tired of being the nice guy so now you try and call guys that get pussy pussies.
I couldn't find the actual study, but a quick Google search of your post comes up with a bunch of right leaning news outlets (that include no citations to the actual study either). Lay news outlets are notorious for misinterpreting the results of studies by drawing eye catching conclusions, you should actually check the source material before you beleive something, especially when it comes to the media
thia post outlines a number of flaws within the study
andrewgelman.com
>alt left
Youre a fucking numbskull, holy shit.
Were literal pussies compared to men who were around in the 1920's or before to the 1970's
How long can you go without air conditioning in the summer? Men in John Wayne's generation worked actual labor jobs in summer heat. Lets see you go do some roofing, ditch digging, or asphalt paving in 115F heat.
Veterans in WW2 came home, build families, worked in steel mills and coal mines directly after being in a war and theyre living into their 90's and 100's,now if a soldier hears another one fart, its PTSD and purple hearts
fml now i look like a retard. woops
Food prior to the 80s had more fat in it. The government changed the food recommendations to cut out fat to prevent obesity due to the increasingly sedentary lifestyle. To make the food not taste like cardboard and in line with the increased recommendations for carbs sugars and starches were added for flavor. Turns out that it is too much carbs, which causes metabolic states which increase fat storage and increase the likelihood if T2 diabetes.
*We're
due to how things worked back then the vast, VAST majority of WW2 vets never saw front line combat.
the ones who actually did came back broken and useless for life at around the same rate as modern wars.
I don't know if all of that is true, but today's food does have way too much carbs and especially high fructose corn syrup (due entirely to the powerful corn lobby). turns out banning sugar from cuba and promoting corn in everything benefits the same groups.
I actually have gone a couple months without air conditioning during the summer. Have you?
I don't know if you noticed, but men today also perform manual labor in intense heat. Not all of them, obviously, since we have a diverse economy with many different kinds of labor. As far as I can see, it's no more of an inconvenience to them than it was fifty or a hundred years ago.
It's the same today with veterans. They come home and try to make a decent effort at continuing their lives as civilians. The difference is that they're coming home from different places and PTSD is taken more seriously than it was before, since we understand it better.
The only combat vet I know that is actually having problems was actually in supply chain. He drove trucks through the IED filled highways of Iraq. Spent a full year there, and a truck backfiring can trigger an episode. Can't even drive without meds. The people I know who saw active combat (the invasion and the battles of Fallujah) don't have anywhere near the same sort of PTSD issues.
>the vast, VAST majority of WW2 vets never saw front line combat.
Oh, youre right. They mostly desk jockies and pushed pencils, mostly.
High fructose corn syrup and regular sugar are so close in types of sugar content it doesn't even really matter for the vast majority of people. The reason why its used in everything is because they took out the fats in food and replaced it with sugars. Corn sugar is cheap because of the lobby, the lobby is not the reason why its used in everything.
Soy Lecithin is way more harmful than syrup that has 1 percent more fructose than normal.
Not exactly vast majority, but about 60% of US Army personnel in the European theater in 1945 were non-combatants.
Source:
usacac.army.mil
Page 19
actually yes they did. The supply tail of an army is longer than the spear.
Hell yeah! Good stuff.
so you say this guy who saw front line combat is actually having problems.
hint: that phrase doesn't mean whatever hollywood movie thing you think it does.
No, they were part of the enormous chain of support roles that there were back then that never took you anywhere near enemies trying to kill you. WW2 was fucking huge, like you can't even imagine -- there were so many people drafted for all manner of roles that don't exist now or have been subcontracted out to private companies to avoid creating more vets with benefits.
>Corn sugar is cheap because of the lobby,
Yes
>the lobby is not the reason why its used in everything.
No. It is.
I'm jacked and an engineer who's worked on roofing jobs, contract work and loading docks before getting my degree. Most of the strong guys i knew were just borderline retarded. Slow readers who barely understand higher order thinking. This just proves if you're dumb you have to work harder.
He never fired a shot, was never fired at. Never saw the enemy. Just drove his truck in convoys, with remote bombs occasionally blowing up trucks around him. I did say active combat, not front line. Hell sometimes they didn't let the drivers even go out with ammo.
The lobby keeps it cheap. Producers need sugar to make their reduced fat food not taste like shit. They take the cheapest option. Hell its not even significantly different than sugar beets or cane sugar in terms of the ratios. Table sugar is 50/50 sucrose/fructose. HFCS is 45/55.
