Science All men fit into 3 ‘masculinity’ categories, scientists say

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Link (Archive)

All men fit into 3 ‘masculinity’ categories, scientists say​

Straight men fit into one of three distinct masculinity categories that define how they navigate their romantic relationships, researchers have discovered.

Experts from the University of British Columbia in Canada conducted in-depth interviews with 92 heterosexual men aged 19 to 43 from 14 different countries to determine how they navigated partnerships as gender roles continue to transform.

“We set out to understand how different types of masculinities shape men’s relationships and their mental health,” Dr. John Oliffe, a professor of nursing at UBC, stated in a press release about the study, which was published in the August issue of Social Science & Medicine.

The first masculinity type defined by the researchers is “neo-traditionalist,” whereby a man “largely follows traditional gender roles, such as being the provider and protector in the relationship.”

The second clearly-defined typology is “egalitarian” and involves a man “seeking a more equal partnership, with emphasis on mutuality and measurable give and take.”

Meanwhile, the third and final clear category defined by the experts is “progressive,” and pertains to men who “work on building gender equity in the partnership through regular, purposeful conversations with their partner to adjust who does what.”
6110B401-AFA9-467B-9190-B447A444CC1C.jpeg
Less than a quarter of men in the study (24%) were categorized as “neo-traditionalist” and half of all those interviewed “purposefully distanced themselves from traditional masculine norms.”

The surprisingly low number highlights how younger generations of men are actively trying to move away from any association with “toxic masculinity,” which includes the suppression of emotion, the assertion of dominance and the reluctance to partake in household chores, such as cooking and cleaning.

Meanwhile, 26% of men interviewed fit into the “progressive” masculinity category, meaning they “focused on fairness and social justice, and checked their own privilege to justly operate within the relationship, and more broadly in society.”

The most common masculinity type among the young interviewees was “egalitarian,” with the men idealizing “equal contributions and reciprocity wherein counts were often used to evaluate each partner’s relative efforts and contributions to the relationship.”

Dr. Oliffe and his team made sure not to cast judgment on the interviewees, instead listening objectively to the men’s responses and applying “constant comparative analytics to build the analyses.”

“What we found was that these masculine types were associated with different benefits as well as challenges,” Dr. Oliffe explained.

For instance, men who actively promoted gender equity and social justice reported improved mental well-being, but those same men often revealed that they faced isolation or criticism from other males, which in turn influenced their mental health.

“While men are becoming more involved in promoting gender equity, little is known about how younger men work to build partnerships in their private lives,” Dr. Oliffe declared.

“With this research, we hope we have helped map that uncharted space and point a way forward for healthier relationships that promote the health of men, their partners and families.”
 
That sounds like alpha, beta & sigma with longer words and re-arranged a bit.
 
This is an example of terrible research.
They have decided that the metric they’re going to measure men with is ‘adherence to traditional gender roles’ and then measured. They find that men vary in their approach to this and so create three sets: low, mid and high.
And that’s it. It says absolutely nothing.
You could do the same with height (shock ! All men are either short, average ish or tall!) Or hair colour (dark, mid or light!) or anything. Pick any trait you like that’s got variance along an axis and you can divide people into low, mid or high.
It’s garbage work. It says nothing about lumping men into categories that are multi variate.
ETA: of course that’s not the point. The point is to tell any men that like trad stuff or gender roles that they are bad.
 
Last edited:
Daily reminder that social science is cargo cult nonsense used to give legitimacy to discredited socialist and communist dogmas. Don't even try debating them. Marginalize them wherever they are found.
 
Canada was a mistake.
Meanwhile, the third and final clear category defined by the experts is “progressive,” and pertains to men who “work on building gender equity in the partnership through regular, purposeful conversations with their partner to adjust who does what.”
And whether he gets to watch her and Tyrone.
 
Experts say, scientists say, blah blah blah blah.
its all word salads with no meaning at this point because the science field has been so corrupted at this point that you cant trust to get an honest word out of anyone these days.

All scientists fit into just 1 locker, neeeeeeerds!!

Starting to see why bullies shoved their heads into the toilet. If I had to hear the middle and high school equivalent of shit like in this article, I too would want to take their lunch money and make them drink toilet water.
 
Al scientists fall into one of three categories:

Real scientists
Social scientists
Historians
 
Men have always been viewed by larger society objectively as to what they can contribute, either through labor, technical experience, wealth generation, even dying for your country.
Sure, but this is very specifically "how much personal utility can a woman extract from a man with the promise of sex?"
 
Back
Top Bottom