In one of the more intriguing bits of science we've seen lately, a couple of New York University researchers have done a brief study exploring whether Donald Trump's calculated expressions of machismo just might have attracted a lot of male voters who may actually be less than fully confident in their masculinity. Basically, the study looks at Google search trends for terms that might indicate worries about masculinity, and correlates that with areas of the country that went to Trump in 2016. Whatever larger studies may be generated from this seminal project, the researcher should prepare to get some very angry hate male mail from the Internet Flying Monkey Brigade, since Trump supporters are VERY MANLY, FUCK YOU, SHUT UP.

The researchers, NYU social psych prof Eric Knowles and psych PhD student Sarah DiMuccio, are happy to acknowledge their study is only "correlational" -- they find a statistical correlation, but haven't proven causality at all, and they say more work would need to be done to really prove any such link. Still, their "fragile masculinity hypothesis" isn't completely made up out of nothing -- they aren't pretending this is a fully-realized Science Fact, but they have some intriguing data.

The piece starts off with a reasonable enough set of background information:

Research shows that many men feel pressure to look and behave in stereotypically masculine ways — or risk losing their status as "real men." Masculine expectations are socialized from early childhood and can motivate men to embrace traditional male behaviors while avoiding even the hint of femininity. This unforgiving standard of maleness makes some men worry that they're falling short. These men are said to experience "fragile masculinity."

The political process provides a way that fragile men can reaffirm their masculinity. By supporting tough politicians and policies, men can reassure others (and themselves) of their own manliness. For example, sociologist Robb Willer has shown that men whose sense of masculinity was threatened increased their support for aggressive foreign policy.

Sounds good so far. And Trump sure has made aggression and toughness a key part of his persona, what with all the calls to send protesters away on a stretcher and the casual misogyny. So how on earth do you try to measure whether voters actually are actually worried about their masculinity? There's the problem, and as Knowles and DiMuccio note, you can't exactly expect guys who question their manhood to answer accurately if you ask "are you confident in your manliness, you big hunk?" And presumably a look at sales of huge 4X4 pickups would rely too much on stereotypes. (DO THAT ONE NEXT!)

Instead, noting that "Researchers have already used Google search patterns to estimate levels of racial prejudice in different parts of the country," the authors decided to see if searching the Googles for terms like "erectile dysfunction," "hair loss," "how to get girls," "penis enlargement," "penis size," "steroids," "testosterone" and "Viagra" might be a good measure of whether men were "concerned about living up to the ideals of manhood."

They even validated the list by sampling 300 men using an Amazon crowdsourcing platform called "Mechanical Turk" and asking them whether they'd ever searched the terms, or might. Sure enough, that sample group did turn up a correlation on a tool used to measure dick-size anxiety, so to speak:

We found that scoring high on a questionnaire measuring "masculine gender-role discrepancy stress" — concern that they aren't as manly as their male friends — was strongly associated with interest in these search topics. Although these men were not a representative sample of American men, their responses suggest that these search terms are a valid way to capture fragile masculinity.

That's a hell of a lot better than just making the list and then assuming anyone looking for boner pills is worried about whether he's satisfied with his hand size.

The upshot of the analysis? You guessed it: Areas with more search results on those terms tended to have voted Trump in 2016:

It's not a perfect correlation -- more dick worries in New Mexico than in Utah, but the former went to Hillary and the latter to Trump. Could be Mormon men just confirm their masculinity by having a bajillion kids. But how's this for a surprise: If this correlation is real, it's also something that's popped up only in the last election.

In contrast, fragile masculinity was not associated with support for Mitt Romney in 2012 or support for John McCain in 2008 — suggesting that the correlation of fragile masculinity and voting in presidential elections was distinctively stronger in 2016.

Also, similar patterns seem to exist for the 2018 midterms -- Republican-voting areas had a pronounced increase in searches for dick-embiggening or how to impress the ladies (no breakdown on whether they're those lonely Russian gals, tho). Again, oddly, no such correlation for the congressional votes in 2014, or even the congressional results from 2016, so it looks like maybe there really is some sort of Trump effect going on here.

Now, should we all assume this means we should start calling Trumpers a bunch of limpdicks? Of course, we will, but it's probably too soon to claim the science is definitive. It's just one study, and psychology studies have sometimes had a poor track record when it comes to being replicated -- research design is everything. As ever with the social sciences, more study is needed, and then some congressional committee will demand to know why anyone is studying stupid stuff anyway.

Still, makes you wonder why so many Trumpies are so intent on deriding their opponents as feminized soy-boy betas. Could be something to this!

And with this dick post, completed, you've guessed it: It's your OPEN THREAD!

[WaPo / NPR]

Yr Wonkette is supported by reader donations. MAN UP and send us money, and then we can all talk about My Little Pony some more.

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Doktor Zoom

Doktor Zoom's real name is Marty Kelley, and he lives in the wilds of Boise, Idaho. He is not a medical doctor, but does have a real PhD in Rhetoric. You should definitely donate some money to this little mommyblog where he has finally found acceptance and cat pictures. He is on maternity leave until 2033. Here is his Twitter, also. His quest to avoid prolixity is not going so great.

Donate with CC

Good morning, America! Attorney General Bill Barr is doing a presser at 9:30 AM EDT about the Mueller report, which nobody will be able to see until around noon or after, once Congress gets the redacted report on CDs. Seeing as that is bullshit, there's no reason to watch this thing, as journalists won't be able to ask him questions about a document they haven't seen. So ... go back to bed, everyone!

Ugh, fine, we guess we will do this, and that is because we care, even though we are quite certain HGTV is doing some kind of very important "Property Brothers" marathon that adds much more of value to the national discourse, and also covers it up with shiplap accent walls. Does Bill Barr do cover-ups with shiplap? No, because he doesn't have the good taste for that.

Reportedly, we are going to hear from Barr why certain things were redacted, including why he thinks certain facts are subject to executive privilege, which is funny because he is not the president and therefore cannot invoke executive privilege. But oh whatever! Details! Robert Mueller won't be there and none of his team will be there, which tells you something about how they feel about this whole process. If they felt like this was on the up-and-up, you'd imagine they might show up to present a united front. As that is not happening, assume the entire thing is a bullshit act meant to help Donald Trump set the narrative for what will otherwise be a very bad day for him.

The New York Times reported last night that the White House has already been briefed on significant portions of the report, because Bill Barr is a rightwing scam artist piece of shit who gives the Trump White House reacharounds. The briefings have reportedly been very helpful for the White House in coming up with how to rebut today's report, which is funny because we thought Trump said this report was a full exoneration, NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION. (Actually nope on both counts, since Mueller didn't decide the obstruction question, and even according to Barr's mash notes, he took a very limited view of the conspiracy question, focusing on the Russian government's hack and dump WikiLeaks operation.)

Anyway, assuming Trump is right about full exoneration, we guess Rudy Giuliani's rebuttal will state that Trump is guilty, full stop. Because that's what "rebuttal" means, correct?

Committee chairs in the House including Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff and Maxine Waters have called upon Bill Barr to cancel today's briefing, as it is useless horseshit. Because Barr literally gives zero fucks about his reputation and apparently is OK with going down in history as a fecal stain on our institutions and the rule of law, the show will go on.

Keep reading... Show less
Donate with CC

Now What? Wonkagenda For Thurs., April 18, 2019

Bill Barr's book report, the NRA is doomed, and Johnny Cash will watch over the Capitol. Your morning news brief!


Morning Wonketariat! Here's some of the things we may be talking about today.

Keep reading... Show less
Donate with CC

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc