Your Political Compass and Masculine/Feminine Traits - OG Myth-Weavers

Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Your Political Compass and Masculine/Feminine Traits

 
Your Political Compass and Masculine/Feminine Traits

Greetings one and wall and seasons wishes.

So, we tend to talk about a lot of political things here in World Talk. You might have noticed that.

There are those who identify as being on the left, some on the right and some in the middle. But where do people actual stand?

We've heard of the Political Compass before. Now, it has its flaws (such as the lack of a "neutral" or "other" option) and its transferability between nations political wings (for example, I'd be considered a far right person in Europe, but in my native country I'm actually a moderate). But over all I think it can give you a general rule-of-thumb idea of where you sit on the political spectrum.

See for yourself! Click this link, fill out the test and then post the image of your results here.

Link: Right here.

How did you go? Did you end up where you thought you'd end up? Surprised by the results? Post here!

I'll go first:

Your Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: 0.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.28






And that brings us to the Second part of this topic: Masculine/Feminine traits and preferences.

I've mentioned before about how I think the West has become too feminised, soft and too tolerant and civilised for our own good. Some others here don't agree with me.

A clever fellow from the Netherlands called Geert Hofstede put together a book called "Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations". The goal of his work was to try and understand how different peoples from different culture and nations form their opinions and perspectives based upon their country of origin. Though he covers several topics, one that I was able to have access to was the masculine and feminine traits of societies that he observed and described. This is the table:





Now this isn't the be-all-end-all table, but I do find it interesting. So, something people can do is look at each of those categories, see how many you agree with and then tally up the score for each category and whether you agreed more with the masculine or feminine. Add a little note if you need explanation.

For example:

Social Norms:
2/3 Masculine, I prefer the "Work in order to live", though what exactly "ego" is would need to be clearer defined.

Politics and Economics: 2 masculine, but would prefer to use negotiation first then force if that doesn't work.

Religion: 2 Masculine, but I don't think it's the most important in life but it is more necessary than "less important".

Work: 3 Masculine, the first two not out of desire but letting the dice fall where they may: if a woman gets paid less because sh does less work or there are less women managers, then so be it, the free market will decide that companies fate.

Family and School: 3 Masculine; though traditional family can be extended to same-sex couples, and failing is only a disaster if you learn nothing from it and don't improve. I don't want both boys and girls crying and "neither fight" because I don't want them both being wimps. Boys can cry at appropriate moments (daughters wedding, death of a loved one/close friend, death of a pet dog (and only a dog) etc), but learning to control their emotions is important. Likewise I don't want them being aggressive, hostile little d-bags that fight at the drop of a hat, but I want them to stand up for themselves and give a bully what's coming to them.


As you can see this isn't a perfect table. A lot of options are either/or, and though I don't have access to the text that would otherwise accompany it, I'd conjecture to say that the author would use this table as a general rule of thumb as representatives of the extremes on either end (100% masculine or feminine) rather than a spectrum. I think he implies as such with this quote:

“Masculinity stands for a society in which social gender roles are clearly distinct: Men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. Femininity stands for a society in which social gender roles overlap: Both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.”

From Hofstede (2001), Culture’s Consequences, 2nd ed. p 297.

Now to me the masculine society sounds better because in it men and women compliment each other and are of great value to each other, because if the society was too feminine as he describes, the society sounds like a bunch of pansy wimps too concerned with feelings and braiding flower-chains for their hair and who'll be taken advantage of. Though I do approve of society becoming more modest in regards to extravagant displays of wealth. However, imo a society that's too masculine would likewise be too brutal, which is why the womens contribution as being concerned with quality of life and tenderness is so valuable.

As you might have noticed it's pretty either/or, which is quite restrictive. But, that's what discussion and elaboration is for!

However, he also put together this handy dandy little chart to look up cultural traits of different countries: https://geert-hofstede.com/united-states.html

What do you think? Where do you stand? Post away!

The political compass questionnaire's questions are vague and lack room for nuance. That being said, it was more or less accurate, so perhaps I should cut it some slack.

Geert Hofstede's classification of masculine and feminine traits I find somewhat arbitrary. Is this some sort of Jungian Archetype thing?

That would give us an idea of what he means when he says "ego oriented". In analytic psychology, the ego is organized, realistic part of the self, whereas the id is wild, uninhibited desire, and the superego is inhibitory. So the ego is basically your conscious self, I guess. Ego oriented may just be a way of saying self-centered.

More information would be useful to know what his exact argument is. I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt that he has one, since he seems to have better academic standing than, say, Jared Diamond.

Overall, I think I would have gotten more out of re-reading the New Testament. Particularly Matthew 7:16.

Not sure on the Masculine/Feminine thing. It seems too vague and superficial. Personally, I disagree with the concept of defining personality traits by gender.

On the Political scale though, I thought the one from I stand with had me a bit too far to the north. This feels right. On I stand with, though, I did tend to focus on what I believed could be achieved.

The results.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/you...6.38&soc=-5.44

https://www.politicalcompass.org/you...3.38&soc=-4.97

"Buddhist terrorist in the making"? How did I even get that result?

...Just kidding, I'm pretty near natural19 in the libertarian left area. I wonder what that makes me look like.

Did anyone else find some of the questions odd, though? Like one of the early ones, benefit of corporations vs benefit to humanity? I can't help but think just a few of the questions were designed to steer people towards liberal left.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avaday Daydream View Post
https://www.politicalcompass.org/you...3.38&soc=-4.97

"Buddhist terrorist in the making"? How did I even get that result?

...Just kidding, I'm pretty near natural19 in the libertarian left area. I wonder what that makes me look like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avaday Daydream View Post
Did anyone else find some of the questions odd, though? Like one of the early ones, benefit of corporations vs benefit to humanity? I can't help but think just a few of the questions were designed to steer people towards liberal left.

It's definitely a limitation, you're right about that. I personally would've liked a "no opinion" or "other" option. A question like you mentioned can be both at the same time: a corporation that makes medical devices is definitely a benefit for humanity, while another one who, say, makes viral weapons for a government wouldn't be.

Eh, sure why not.



Your Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36

Apparently, I'm close to Ghandi. :x

As you have already noted, that table for masculine and feminine traits is rather flawed, I'm being mild when I say that. I take it that it's far more detailed if you buy the book, but I have little inclination to do so. I don't like the either or. Life is seldom that clear cut, there are always circumstances unique to that individual situation that can swing an opinion.

I'll still indulge you on the questionnaire. With the caveat that I'll superimpose my reasoning since the tables demand for an either or is made glaringly obvious(no neutral response )

Social norms: 3/3 feminine.
1-I think ego refers to your relations being you oriented. Like dictating your will upon others. That's my interpretation anyway. That said, it's why I went with relationship oriented. No one is an island, during my hardest years in my short life. I've always had others to lean on, plus networking is something people aren't taught in school even though it's just as important as "hard work" and for someone in my economic and social predicament. Trying to ram my way through life would get me nowhere.

That said, I enjoy the progress of my career. It's a calling as far as I'm concerned and I would be content if it payed me minimum wage(albeit with grumbling) so money and new toys has never been one of my "must achieve for happiness".

Politics: 2/2 feminine
Why is protecting the environment, feminine? We already went through the rough lessons of unchecked industrial progress(and waste) thanks to the industrial/gilded age. While they certainly helped achieve a degree of prosperity for those that benefited(which slowly spread to the under classes once sanitation,medicine and the like became affordable), the environmental impacts are well documented. Having regulatory offices to keep tabs on industries shouldn't be denigrated.

As for the negotiations; Hm, I don't agree with it. Negotiations should be preferred unless the other side is committing such egregious actions and is not inclined to listen that force is necessary. Granted force could run the gamut depending on effectiveness.

Religion: 2/2 feminine

I would make a joke about why the importance of religion is based on masculinity, but it would be in bad taste, granted this is a subject that I'm rather salty about. I detest how people try to equate religion with morality, or that the order/sense of community they dictate is necessarily good for each member. As for the priesthood question. As an excommunicated Melchizedek priest(ess), I think anyone can fake their enthusiasm/sincerity for their former/current religion

Work: 2/3 feminine
If a woman can perform their tasks just as competently as a man in the same field, they should not have to fight tooth and nail just to have the same crummy wage(still don't understand why men aren't included in maternity leave. It's their child too after all, it's not like rotation is too hard of a task), if they have the chops to be in management, let them. As for hourspay, eh. I think no one minds a higher pay raise. I don't understand why it's balanced against fewer hours,(unless the higher pay is because of more hours, then it should reflect as such)

Family and School: 3/3 feminine
I'm not terribly fond of the "girls cry, boys don't, boys fight, girls don't" vs "both girls and boys cry" and shouldn't fight, option. Seriously, what sort of nonsense is that?

We're humans, we react according to how our experiences and and personalities shape us to be.

As for the failing question. Bruce Lee said is best "Don't fear failure. — Not failure, but low aim, is the crime. In great attempts it is glorious even to fail.”

You fail, well that sucks. Get back, learn from it and try a different approach. No time to wallow in self pity.

As for family structures. Flexible. My dad may have been the income earner, for the largest amount of time, but he learned the hard way that he might as well have been a stranger to his children. First generation immigrant parents don't exactly have a great track record with their Americanized children. In my experience anyway.

We still love eachother even if we do dislike one another.

I think the "preference for higher pay vs preference for less hours worked" does have some basis in reality, as women are more likely to work part time jobs or jobs with fewer hours in order to give them the flexibility (particularly if they're working mothers). Where-as men typically don't have that inclination, usually (but not always) because they're either trying to make as much for themselves as they can or they've got a family to support.



Though, to be fair, if there was a "no opinion" or "other" option, I'd most likely be true center.

As for masculine vs feminine traits? Purely societally based, propagated by our ancestors and continued to be passed on from one generation to the next.

I said 'disagree' for almost all of the questions (due to their wording) and ended up here:





 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2024-03-28 06:19:57pm local time
Myth-Weavers Status