Search Box

Friday, September 15, 2017

Wimpy men and masculine women

The NY Post ran an article this afternoon, Police union wants professor fired over 'dead cop' tweets. According to the article:

Professor Michael Isaacson, a self-proclaimed member of the Antifa movement who works in the economics department at the CUNY Manhattan college [John Jay], tweeted from the account @VulgarEconomics: “Some of ya’ll might think it sucks being an anti-fascist teaching at John Jay College but I think it’s a privilege to teach future dead cops” on Aug. 23.

Isaacson is evidently the kind of pretentious twerp who, in an effort to seem more street, uses black language like "y'all" without even knowing how to spell it correctly. And, we know from his later email to the Post that he can't really think clearly, either:

“I critique policing as an institution which operates at the behest of a state that increasingly represents the weapons and prison industry rather than the public they’re supposed to serve through decades of gerrymandering by both Republicans and Democrats.”

So the average cop goes about his daily beat wondering what he can do to improve the net profits of Smith & Wesson? And what does gerrymandering have to do with the "weapons and prison industry?" (Nothing.)

Isaacson probably threw in "both Republicans and Democrats" to make himself sound impartial. (Yeah, right.) But mostly, he probably liked the sound of the word "gerrymandering," which has a sophisticated political sound to it.

Isaacson shouldn't be teaching at any college, let alone a college which a lot of future (dead?) law enforcement personnel attend. But that's not the point of this post. 

The point is, the pictures of Isaacson which accompanied the article:

After seeing this first picture, I thought, is his neck really that thin or is that an optical illusion created by the photo angle?

This second picture answered my question:

He is the proverbial pencil neck geek. This is a pattern I see over and over again, and I don't think it's coincidence: a lot of the white Left seems to consist of wimpy men and masculine women. 

Just by coincidence, I happened to see this article earlier today, about conservative Ben Shapiro's speech yesterday at Berkeley. It featured a photograph of a protester, Sarah Roark, who was arrested on suspicion of carrying a banned weapon. Here's Sarah, 44, of San Francisco:

When you see so many Leftists who follow this pattern, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that there's an innate connection with people's physicality and their political stances.

Did Isaacson and Roark arrive at their viewpoints via a certain baseline resentment against the people who ignored them in high school? 

Do they accuse the other side of being haters because of all the inchoate rage they feel at the unfairness of being considered unattractive? 

Is this why they are instinctively attracted to an ideology which bemoans "injustice" and caters to the politics of resentment and jealousy?

I don't know the answers to these questions.

But given the frequency with which wimpy men and masculine women are drawn to Leftism, it's hard not to see a connection.


Anonymous said...

Unattractive people are mostly so because they don't care about how others percieve them, and not because of any natural factor. I know fat women whom I'd nevertheless deem attractive, and also good-looking men who have obvious wrinkles and grey hair. These people take great care about the aspects of their looks that they can control, which usually makes up for the aspects they can't. The attractive fat women dress well and look after their hair; the attractive older men put on muscles, trim their facial hair and dress smartly. Whitening the teeth also goes a long way, as does choosing a flattering pair of glasses (many people wear glasses that don't suit their faces). I occasionally look at ugly people and wonder what I'd do to make them better-looking. Turns out there's usually a lot they could do because often they're like that as a result of neglect and other lifestyle choices, not nature.

So I don't agree with you that these lefties resent being ugly. It's probably that they don't realise how they're coming across, or that they don't care about it. Most of them are probably asexual anyway.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
I agree that people can do a lot to help their own looks. I don't consider fat women or men good-looking, so I'd say first of all, diet, followed by all the other things you suggest, and even plastic surgery where it's needed. And yes, dress and makeup and clothes can help too.

But there's just no way that Michael Isaacson would ever have been able to present himself as anything other than a wimp. I suppose he could take massive does of steroids, that would definitely help him. But short of that, he's going to be a misfit in any group of guys who value machismo, or, at least, athletic ability. And he knows it, and he would naturally resent that.

As far as Sarah Roark, I'd guess she doesn't care that much at this point about whether males find her attractive; but she may have learned the hard way, starting in junior high school, that they did not. And as a naturally masculine women, she probably resents conventional views of what a woman should be. And, for all that is said to deny stereotypes the days, the fact is, feminine women are simply considered more desirable, not only by men, but by lesbians, too, despite the lip service many of them pay to disapproving of "patriarchal" standards of "conventional" beauty:

I've never bought the "asexual" thing. I'm sure some people have lower sex drives, but a lot of times people will affix that label to someone who doesn't appear to date much, but is in fact gay, or possibly a pedophile. (The gay thing was undoubtedly truer in the past than it is now.)

Anonymous said...

"However, Dr Frederick, of the Florida University, and fellow researcher Nilmini Jayasena, of the Peradeniya University, Sri Lanka, admitted it was far from clear if methylmercury could be linked to similar effects in mammals."

Sure sure, yeah yeah...


John Craig said...

Ga --
There do seem to be plenty of chemicals in our environment that are having negative effects on our testosterone levels.

Anonymous said...

Another classic John post.

However, I beg to differ about "there's an innate connection with people's physicality and their political stances."

Our thoughts shape our personality, looks and outlooks and thoughts are mostly the outcome of our upbringing and childhood experiences. Thinking makes us so.


Anonymous said...

I think in general there are good reasons why we have ideas about the relationship between physiognomy/appearance and character/reproductive-fitness. (There is typically wisdom in whatever people thought before the usual asshole expert came along and told them they were wrong.)

Some recent headlines come to mind.

I'm sure you saw the one about the AI that can tell your sexual orientation from a photo (I oversimplify):

and I think you may have posted previously an article on this study (about physical weakness in men correlating with political affiliation):

and then (I think I mentioned this in a comment on here before) there is the nice Chinese study, where they first showed the AI many photos of criminals, let it draw out some commonality, and then gave it photos of a mixed population, and it could pick out criminals from the mixed group by looks alone:

MY POINT HERE is not to multiply article links (heehee) but to say that we are not all randomly-composed unique individuals with shiny-and-new characteristics, so much as we are types, and that with sufficient attention and data-crunching people can be sorted into groups of objects that don't often behave unexpectedly...(which relates to psychopaths, once identified)...and also to the article you cited in this post...(there will always be some exceptions, of course, that's why STUDY NEVER ENDS, heehee)


Anonymous said...


he really does seem poorly-educated, he does indeed LEAP RIGHT OVER the difference between advocating genocide and killing with one's own hands...and several other logical glitches in this brief clip...besides being an emotion-riddled twitch


Anonymous said...


I am new to your blog but greatly enjoying reading it. I stumbled on your "Sociopath Alert" for Lance Armstrong while looking for info on sociopaths (perhaps at some point in the future you'd care to hear the tale of my recent/current involvement with the suspected sociopath that inspired the search in question) and was struck by the fact you were a good deal ahead of the curve on him, which led to my reading numerous other of your posts over the next few hours and days. Now you've got a new dedicated reader on your hands!

I noticed in a post you wrote about the Mayweather/McGregor fight you mentioned a mild interest in MMA. I wondered if you're familiar with UFC star Jon Jones and, if you are, whether you share my take that he is almost certainly a sociopath. I think he'd make a good subject for a piece on your blog whether he is someone you already know about in great detail or end up having to do a bit of reading about in order to formulate an opinion.

Anyway, I'm really enjoying going through your archives this past week or so. I've been having difficulty sleeping since getting and trying to remain sober and as such keep odd hours, so having a glut of interesting reading material is a must, and your blog has been one of my biggest sources of entertainment since finding it. Keep up the great work!


John Craig said...

Sherie --
Our thoughts DO shape who we are, including our looks, and our thoughts, really ARE who we ARE. But I also think our looks also shape our thoughts to some degree. How people react to us, how we perceive ourselves, how the level of hormones in our bodies shape our thinking. If this were not the case, why would men and women differ so much? And likewise, why would men and women who fall between the cracks, so often gravitate to Leftist thinking? It can't just be coincidence.

John Craig said...

That second article you linked is a better explanation for why weak men are liberal than the explanation I suggested, social resentment. strongmen are simply more likely to fight for what's theirs. Or what they want to be theirs.

Yes, I've seen the news about AI being able to tell our sexuality. And our criminality. I think I also saw something about AI being able to tell our intelligence from our faces, too. That's going to make for some really interesting scenarios. Can you imagine coming in for a job interview?

"Please, Mr. Henweed, sit right there and face the camera....Okay, your interview is over."

"What?? But you didn't even ask me any questions! I didn't get a chance to tell you why I'd be good at this job!"

"That's okay Mr. Henweed, we got what we wanted, thank you for coming in."

My guess is that in the current climate, using AI for those purposes, if that stuff actually works, will be declared illegal, especially since inevitably the AI will prove itself to be a race realist, which is thoughtcrime number one these days.

John Craig said...

GUINEA HENWEED (in response to your 2:38 comment) --

To me Isaacson doesn't sound so much uneducated as just dishonest. He refuses to admit that Antifa shuts people down, and claims that conservative speakers promote violence when most of them do nothing of the kind. If he wants to attribute Dylan Roof to, say, Milo Yiannapoulos or Ann Coulter, then all of those cop-killers and rioters and Antifa itself should be attributed to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Isaacson actually sounds "overeducated" in the sense that he has swallowed all of the Leftist propaganda that colleges promote these days.

John Craig said...

J.R. --
Thank you very much, especially for reading through the archives.

Sure, I'm always interested in a new sociopath story, maybe you could submit as a comment sometime.

I'm not as much of a UFC fan as I used to be, I found it fascinating back in the early 90's when it was all new and fresh. I still follow it a little, though not as closely. And I'm familiar with Jon Jones' various brushes with the law and his drug tests and so on. (And I just read his Wiki bio before writing this post, to defamiliarize myself with his story.) To be honest, to me he just sounds like a guy with not much self control, and who gets in trouble from time to time. Those are certainly traits one associates with a sociopath, but there are other traits that he doesn't have: the constant dishonesty, the pretending to be something he is not, the emotional falseness, and the constant ill will and brimming over with hostility that some sociopaths have. Think of it this way: if he were a sociopath, he'd be a slicker con man, and he's simply not. What you see with him is pretty much what you get.

Sometimes black criminals will exhibit behavior which in a white you'd associate with sociopaths, but in a black just means a naturally lower level of inhibitions. I wrote a little about this here:

Mike Tyson would be another good example of a black guy who seemed to be out of control, and exhibited behaviors which in a white would probably mean sociopathy, but with Tyson, just indicated allow level of inhibition. (Tyson, too, didn't have the sort of emotional falseness and overall dishonesty that characterizes sociopaths.)

Glad to hear I'm helping you stay sober. AA should use this blog as a tool!

Steven said...

There's that psychological angle but you've also pointed out in the past that there is a link between testosterone and political beliefs. Lower t men are more likely to be universalistic in their orientation, more empathetic towards other group's and less likely to put their own group's interests first. So lower t white men will more likely be liberal whereas higher t (or average) black men are more likely to be liberal because for blacks that is sticking up for their own group's interest.

Lesbians whose personality might be influenced by higher t levels than average women, would be feminists because that is in their group interests and also reflects more of a drive towards dominance.

I have got most of the above ideas from you so I'm surprised you didn't cover this in the post.

John Craig said...

Steven --
You're right, I have said that, I was just approaching it from a different angle in this post. But yeah, as both you and GUINEA HENWEED (above) pointed out, there are better explanations than mere social resentment. High T does make one more likely to stick up for oneself, and in the old (caveman) days, better able to stick up for oneself.

Douglas Carkuff said...

I want to mention that I have been troubled for a long time with what I consider the misuse of the word "liberal"and its continued conflation with "progressives" and the left. I have been a libertarian for many years and consider libertarians to be the true liberals - live and let live, self ownership, proscription against aggression, personal responsibility and so on. Progressives and the left are authoritarians with a desire to control the thoughts and choices of others, which can hardly be considered liberal from my perspective.

Likewise, the right and "conservatives" are similarly authoritarian, they simply have a different authoritarian agenda. It seems to me that both the left and the right desire to remake society in their own images, enforcing their moral conceits on others, which I consider neither liberal nor conservative.

There is huge emphasis on the left and right with dictating people's attitudes and opinions when the only thing anyone has a right to be concerned with is how people behave relative to others and whether or not they are interfering with the right of others to live their lives as they choose.

John Craig said...

Douglas --
You're right, of course, and for the most part, I subscribe to the same live-and-let-live/personal responsibility philosophy as you, though I no longer call myself a libertarian.

And yes, the word "liberal" has taken on a completely different meaning than it had back in the Sixties. Back then, it stood for free speech, civil rights meaning equal rights (but not racial or gender-based set-asides), etc. But, when people use the term now, everybody knows exactly whom they're talking about, so as a matter of convenience, I'm happy to use the word, even if it's been completely divorced from its original meaning.

Anonymous said...

ooh, I just saw that nice just posted further on this same topic so IT MUST BE FATE telling me I better post the link here:

(I remember awhile back MISTER CRAIG gave a list of the blogs he liked, but, I myself have only recently become aware of the nice (I disagree with him on various technical points but I LIKE HIS GENERAL FIERCE ATTITUDE so screw the details) so I wouldn't have noticed if MISTER CRAIG was onto or not, the name is so generic)


John Craig said...

Actually, I hadn't been aware of his website. (I see that up at the top he has a picture of a samurai on the right and a Japanese Kanji symbol on the left, I wonder if he's a half-breed like me.)

I hadn't seen that the gays had already objected to the AI news, but I have to imagine that there will be even stronger objections to AI's ability to sense IQ and criminality, as they touch on the third rail of American politics, race. (Gays are a protected species nowadays too, but outing them is not quite as verboten as talking about IQ and criminality.)

Anonymous said...


Thanks for the encouragement. I have found AA and NA meetings helpful this go-around (I've had many "false starts" in previous attempts to get sober, as most addicts tend to), I think
in no small part because I've been much more honest with myself and others and have "worked it," whereas previously I was content simply to quit my drugs of choice without changing my patterns of behavior and thinking and then, not surprisingly, found myself dissatisfied with the feeling of sobriety in the intervening days, weeks and, occasionally, months.

Re: the entry you linked -- very interesting and I think you are definitely onto something with your thoughts there. Regarding Jones, I'm thinking less of his patterns of getting into trouble and more of his vehement denials of having used PEDs (blaming a previous positive test for an estrogen blocker on a "dick pill" given to him by a teammate (which, it just so happens, was purchased in an order from an online pharmacy in an order that also included the estrogen blocker in question...), swearing "on [his] children and Heavenly Father" that he would never do PEDs), treating the hit-and-run where he ran into a pregnant driver, fled the scene of the accident, returned to retrieve a wad of cash and some marijuana and then fled again and later referred to the incident in a "coming clean" interview on Joe Rogan's podcast as "a mistake," making a long speech after his most recent victory over Daniel Cormier (which has since been made into a No Contest after he tested positive for Turanibol (the substance he swears on his children and Heavenly Father he would never use)) about how he admires Cormier and he sees now what it takes to be a good man and a true champion, etc. He's also had a long history of poking other fighters in the eyes and claiming he does it unintentionally (funnily enough, it seems to happen most often when he's in a spot of trouble in his fights), but when angry fans mention it to him on Twitter he posts videos pretending to cry about it and mocking the fans for saying he pokes opponents in the eyes, then deleting said videos/Tweets, etc. He doesn't seem to be particularly GOOD at deceiving most of the public, but there remain a stunningly high number of fans, officials and figures in the MMA world who seem willing to indulge stories from Jones' camp that "someone must have spiked a drink" before his fight, or that he "simply used tainted supplements mistakenly" yet again. There was also the infamous piece of footage where Jon and Daniel Cormier were being interviewed remotely for a TV show a few years ago and Jon was comporting himself civilly during the televised interview, then during a break when he thought the cameras were no longer rolling he addressed Cormier with, "You still there, pu--y? You know I could kill you, right?" Perhaps I'm just going overboard with my schadenfreude and it is as you say, but he certainly doesn't seem to be at all genuine to me, constantly referencing his Lord and Savior out of one side of his mouth while lying and cheating and blaming and accusing others out of the other.

I'll probably get to work typing up my experience with the suspected sociopath in my life tonight. There are a lot of unpleasant memories attached, as I'm sure you understand better than anyone, but it might be cathartic to share my story with another/others.

Keep up the great work. This really is a terrific blog, as I said. I've just been reading your piece about if the media reported on mass shootings and found myself nodding in agreement -- I've often thought their coverage of such killings and their penchant for wallowing in the misery and sordid details of the crimes they so vehemently decry was stunningly hypocritical, irresponsible and overall dishonest.


John Craig said...

J. R. --
I"m surprised you were able to get that posted as one comment, usually with a comment that long they tell you you've reached your limit and have to make it into two parts, or something like that. (You may find that if you write a comment about the sociopath you know.)

You make a great case for Jones being a sociopath; I was actually familiar with some those incidents, but not all. Yes, he is dishonest, and with Cornier, I guess, two-faced. And all that stuff about swearing on his children and Heavenly Father is pretty low; and the emphatic way he's denied his PED use does smell of sociopaths. Okay, I'm sold. He's a lousy liar, but that doesn't necessarily preclude sociopathy, I guess.

You may find writing about the sociopath cathartic. Here's my account of my first sociopath:

(Or just go to the blog on August 5th, 2014.) Part of the reason I wrote it was because I started off just as naive as everyone else when it came to sociopaths. A lot of people are embarrassed about how stupid and naive they were in retrospect, after their first sociopath, but if you've never really known one before, there's no way you'd be prepared, so that was my way of saying, don't be embarrassed. Being innocent to start with just shows that you were decent yourself.

Thanks again re: the blog.

Anonymous said...

Most older gay people I noticed are not excessively effiminate:
Rock Hudson and Leonardo DaVinci are/were gay.

If you look at a modern gay person:

Maybe the few incidents of gays in older and ancient times were natural cases. The very weird ones, who you see in pride parades, weirdos, are less natural in origin.


John Craig said...

Ga --
There are plenty of examples one could come up with of relatively masculine men who are gay and weak men who are straight, but there's definitely a correlation between hormones, and effeminacy, and being gay. There's also "gay voice," which is probably the biggest giveaway, and mannerisms, including walking style, which can be tells. All these things feed into one's gaydar, and aren't just coincidence.

Not Dave said...

"...he's going to be a misfit in any group of guys who value machismo, or, at least, athletic ability. And he knows it, and he would naturally resent that."

John Craig-

A majority of police officers are type A personalities (I myself am not but have learned to be one when needed). If Mister Pencil Neck Geek has been surrounded by such people semester after semester, and a majority of them are conservative in thought, then he's been bombarded by things he doesn't agree with for a long time and can't do much about it. So he's left to social media to create some sort of relativism for himself. Being constantly shot down by groups can be frustrating. My guess is when he's tried to pass off "liberal" (yes, I used that word) views he's been brought to task over it by a gang of macho guys time and time again. His only way out is to take selfies (so he can look at and approve of himself) and get on social media as he can find others that think like him and not be laughed at by his classes.

My body type has, like my dad's side of the family, been tall and slender. There was a time several years ago where I took weight gainer shakes, loads of protein supplements but no steroids, worked out several times per week (mostly weight lifting to gain muscle) and got pretty much nowhere. Some of us are not the type to gain or have muscles. I've always been conservative though when I was younger I was more moderate. As I learned how life works, how the world turns, I became more conservative to be almost Libertarian but never went that far. I stop at living in a fantasy world denying certain things exist. Of course being a peace officer myself I do have a great respect for our Constitution and rule of law. Every great society needs rules and laws. There's good ones and idiotic ones but we still need them nonetheless. Getting back to being called a "bean pole" when I was a kid didn't cause me to sway liberal. My parents were conservative and my father is a retired cop so they had influence obviously on how my brother and I turned out regardless of our physical makeup.

You are far more versed in psychology than I am but I do like learning.

John Craig said...

Not Dave --
Thank you for that insightful and honest comment. I should have taken more pains to point out that the correlation I pointed out is hardly perfect. I was just throwing out the social resentment angle as a thought. In the past, as Steven pointed out above, I've pointed out that guys with lower testosterone levels are more likely to be aggressive and stick up for their own group (so high T whites will veer Right and high T blacks will veer Left).

Your analysis of what caused Isaacson to say what he did is better than mine, but in a sense is also similar: you're describing in more detail exactly how he would have ended up on social media saying what he said, but it was still resentment that drove him there.

I come from a slender family too, and have lifted my whole life an effort to counteract that, but at age 63, am still 5' 11", 160. I swim all the time, which sort of keeps me skinny, but if I didn't lift once a week I'd probably weigh 155. I suppose I'd be an exception to my own rule too. You, like a lot of police officers, were pushed rightward by constant contact with reality: being a cop is in a sense almost like being in jail: you're forced to confront the worst elements of society on a daily basis, and that dose of reality forces one to be realistic about human nature and racial differences. (No one comes out of jail a liberal, either.) My own path was different: I grew up surrounded by liberals, and I saw their hypocrisy and dishonesty on a daily basis. And, of course, these days, all you have to do is see what the MSM has to say on any issue to see the Left's hypocrisy and dishonesty.

Anyway, you're right, I'm speaking in generalizations here and should have pointed that out.

Anonymous said...

I did know a masculine women who was actually straight, was an ex-boss at a part time job I did as a busser in a restaurant in the southern part of HK island. Not a butch lesbian, but dressed like a man, played squash, wore sporty clothes, lowish voice but not the lesbian nasally monotone.

She was a great person to work for, always out on the field, getting her hands dirty even if it wasn't her duty. Leads by example. Very good with teaching trainees, could explain something to anyone in a few words and we would get it instantly (I have a horrible time learning and remembering but what she said would stick).

I kinda feel for her now that I think about it. If she really is naturally male acting and masculine, not just a tomboy, quite unfemimine despite being straight, it will be hard to find a relationship (she has mentioned wanting to find a man).

I also had a literature teacher in my sophomore year who had a gay lisp but was straight. Every about him was straight except that lisp. I wonder where he got that from.

To what you said about finding manly gays and wimpy straights.

I have met some gays and lesbians in my life, and the more normal acting ones seem to have better mental health, be in better shape, and self esteem. Pointing to normal development, a not so abnormal womb.

I know a gay man in his 60s, was my father's mentor in the business world when he worked after graduating. He is married and quite conservative too ( I don't mean politically, I don't know who he voted for). He is just so unlike the gays I see who are my age.

I just can't shake that some gays have, or more accurately lack being too different, and that means there exist organic gays who are different than the ones with some hormone and chemical screw up.


John Craig said...

Ga --
I've met a couple of butch women (who WERE lesbians) who struck me as more reasonable and logical than the average woman; they were pleasant, and didn't have the chip on their shoulder against men that a pretty substantial percentage of lesbians seem to. At the time I met them it occurred to me, hmm, their brains were formed to be like a guy's brain, but they were well brought up and had nice fathers, so they don't hate men. (I have no idea if any of that is true, it was just what occurred to me at the time.) And the distinct feeling I was left with was, well, if they're going to be nice to me, I'll certainly be nice to them. Women like that promote a live and let live ethos, whereas the ones with the purple hair and nose rings you see acting hysterical at various protests leave you thinking, well that display won't win anyone over to their cause.

Anyway, to your point, yes, gays and straights come in different forms, not every last one of them hews to a stereotype. But the stereotypes arise in the first place because so many of them do.