So many great points discussed here, especially appreciated the soylennial discussion at the end.
I remember seeing a study a month ago that "proved" masculinity is toxic in the workplace because the study found that hyper masculine workplaces values results over wellness and icreated a hostile, competitive environment that women and non-competitive men could not thrive in. Conversely, it found workplaces without "toxic" masculinity did not achieve the same high results but created a more homogeneous workplace where everyone felt welcome. They also found that testosterone levels in men actually started to drop in this homogeneous, non-competitive workplace environment. (Again, the study saw this as good.)
In other words, women could not compete with high T men in the workplace, and so high T men were either removed from the workplace or became low T to succeed.
So honestly, I don't know how much of this is nature and how much is nurture. You see this alarming evidence of testosterone dropping in men, and it's a chicken and egg question: Is something chemically happening that's resulting in low T men? Or are new societal constraints forcing men to opt into low T lifestyles to succeed?
That was the biggest eye opener for me too. I always assumed feminized environments attracted low T men. I had no idea that men put into feminized environments BECOME low T. Also that this is apparently a known phenomenon, and is seen as the optimal outcome for a diverse workplace, because it lowers "toxicity" (read: competitiveness, combativeness, disagreeableness).
If you look at other studies that show increasing testosterone in low-T men turns them conservative... Well, it's I'm pretty short walk into tin foil hat conspiracy theory, where we're socially engineering high-T conservative men out of existence. Which, I admit, sounds categorically insane, except statistics show this is actually happening.
I suspect the only reason we're not pursuing studies like this further is that studies like this are all conducted by organizations already co-opted by the problem.
Artificial lighting can mess with hormones as well. It’s definitely an interesting topic to consider. Seems like in a capitalist society; if one must choose between efficiency and harmony - the obvious choice would be efficiency / competency / success. I realize that we aren’t really a capitalist society and equity is forced into workplaces via mandates such as “X% of this audit must be completed by a minority own accounting firm.” At some point the cold blooded capitalists are going to rise up and demand some efficiency, right?
Anyhow I also loved that Quokka thread by ZHPL. It’s one of the first ZHPL threads I tried to explain to my not-online husband.
I am only recently online because I was trying to suss out decent information during the COVID era and MSM was all lies and propaganda. COVID dissidents led me to other dissidents and here I am. But I do secretly joke that he must have a secret frog Twitter account because he says very similar things that I see there quite often.
If I meditate, I lower my body's cortisol. So I suppose if I meditated regularly, it's possible I could naturally alter how much cortisol my body produces.
FYI, this is not an editorial comment/opinion but just clarifying something you guys got wrong, understandably so because neither of you were born yet: the 1986 immigration policy you guys talk about was not CA. It was federal and promoted and signed by Reagan. It granted mass amnesty to illegal immigrants in the whole country who arrived before 1984, which was sold to supposedly be in exchange for cracking down on employers and penalizing them for knowingly hiring illegal workers. Of course that crack down never happened, instead 3 million plus illegal immigrants magically overnight were legalized.
That mass amnesty was a Republican bill and at the time CA Hispanics voted just as frequently for the GOP as they did DNC, so it definitely had nothing to do with some plan to change CA blue...Reagan was a Republican from CA after all. It's more likely that CA went blue bc of increasingly affluent/liberal white voters and also Republican anti-immigrant bill attempts in CA in the 90s and 21st century, specifically Prop 187 in 1994, which made Hispanic voters in CA not like Republicans for a long time.
CA and TX have tracked each other almost identically in size and growth rate of their Hispanic population over the years, and CA Hispanic voters shifted heavily blue after 1994 bc the GOP there became viewed as hostile to immigrants, while in TX, that didn't happen bc the GOP was always actively courting Hispanics and not being hostile. GWB personified that to the utmost by running as a Spanish-speaking "compassionate conservative" who was friendly to Mexican voters, etc. Blue eyed pale white politicians in TX have always played up the Tex-Mex thing or just flat out implied/pretended to be Hispanic when they're not...see Beto O'Rourke, though I'd count Ted Cruz too. CA Republicans went the other way, suicidally.
I agree with Issac that some men are just born soylennials but I do know a fair number of men who in response to forces out of their control have become soylennials. But then again, maybe they did this because they had more of a proclivity to it anyways.
So many great points discussed here, especially appreciated the soylennial discussion at the end.
I remember seeing a study a month ago that "proved" masculinity is toxic in the workplace because the study found that hyper masculine workplaces values results over wellness and icreated a hostile, competitive environment that women and non-competitive men could not thrive in. Conversely, it found workplaces without "toxic" masculinity did not achieve the same high results but created a more homogeneous workplace where everyone felt welcome. They also found that testosterone levels in men actually started to drop in this homogeneous, non-competitive workplace environment. (Again, the study saw this as good.)
In other words, women could not compete with high T men in the workplace, and so high T men were either removed from the workplace or became low T to succeed.
So honestly, I don't know how much of this is nature and how much is nurture. You see this alarming evidence of testosterone dropping in men, and it's a chicken and egg question: Is something chemically happening that's resulting in low T men? Or are new societal constraints forcing men to opt into low T lifestyles to succeed?
I knew exposure to the longhouse was shriveling my balls in a figurative sense, you're telling me it's physically happening too?
That was the biggest eye opener for me too. I always assumed feminized environments attracted low T men. I had no idea that men put into feminized environments BECOME low T. Also that this is apparently a known phenomenon, and is seen as the optimal outcome for a diverse workplace, because it lowers "toxicity" (read: competitiveness, combativeness, disagreeableness).
If you look at other studies that show increasing testosterone in low-T men turns them conservative... Well, it's I'm pretty short walk into tin foil hat conspiracy theory, where we're socially engineering high-T conservative men out of existence. Which, I admit, sounds categorically insane, except statistics show this is actually happening.
I suspect the only reason we're not pursuing studies like this further is that studies like this are all conducted by organizations already co-opted by the problem.
I know food can lower testosterone, but wonder how environment can lower testosterone. You become how you act which alters your body’s chemistry?
Artificial lighting can mess with hormones as well. It’s definitely an interesting topic to consider. Seems like in a capitalist society; if one must choose between efficiency and harmony - the obvious choice would be efficiency / competency / success. I realize that we aren’t really a capitalist society and equity is forced into workplaces via mandates such as “X% of this audit must be completed by a minority own accounting firm.” At some point the cold blooded capitalists are going to rise up and demand some efficiency, right?
Anyhow I also loved that Quokka thread by ZHPL. It’s one of the first ZHPL threads I tried to explain to my not-online husband.
Online wife, not-online husband...rare combo
I am only recently online because I was trying to suss out decent information during the COVID era and MSM was all lies and propaganda. COVID dissidents led me to other dissidents and here I am. But I do secretly joke that he must have a secret frog Twitter account because he says very similar things that I see there quite often.
If I meditate, I lower my body's cortisol. So I suppose if I meditated regularly, it's possible I could naturally alter how much cortisol my body produces.
There are people in the world who 1. do not wish us well and 2. do not cultivate this feminization (effemination? :) of men.
FYI, this is not an editorial comment/opinion but just clarifying something you guys got wrong, understandably so because neither of you were born yet: the 1986 immigration policy you guys talk about was not CA. It was federal and promoted and signed by Reagan. It granted mass amnesty to illegal immigrants in the whole country who arrived before 1984, which was sold to supposedly be in exchange for cracking down on employers and penalizing them for knowingly hiring illegal workers. Of course that crack down never happened, instead 3 million plus illegal immigrants magically overnight were legalized.
That mass amnesty was a Republican bill and at the time CA Hispanics voted just as frequently for the GOP as they did DNC, so it definitely had nothing to do with some plan to change CA blue...Reagan was a Republican from CA after all. It's more likely that CA went blue bc of increasingly affluent/liberal white voters and also Republican anti-immigrant bill attempts in CA in the 90s and 21st century, specifically Prop 187 in 1994, which made Hispanic voters in CA not like Republicans for a long time.
CA and TX have tracked each other almost identically in size and growth rate of their Hispanic population over the years, and CA Hispanic voters shifted heavily blue after 1994 bc the GOP there became viewed as hostile to immigrants, while in TX, that didn't happen bc the GOP was always actively courting Hispanics and not being hostile. GWB personified that to the utmost by running as a Spanish-speaking "compassionate conservative" who was friendly to Mexican voters, etc. Blue eyed pale white politicians in TX have always played up the Tex-Mex thing or just flat out implied/pretended to be Hispanic when they're not...see Beto O'Rourke, though I'd count Ted Cruz too. CA Republicans went the other way, suicidally.
Thanks for this very thoughtful and interesting correction. As punishment, Isaac will be placed in the Cringe Corner for the remainder of the week.
I love that such smart folks are listening to NRP Radio!
I agree with Issac that some men are just born soylennials but I do know a fair number of men who in response to forces out of their control have become soylennials. But then again, maybe they did this because they had more of a proclivity to it anyways.
I love when you two are on together.
Read Christopher Caldwell's Age of Entitlement to be enlightened on the history of the civil rights regime.