01:00 What is masculine?
14:00 Matter of Opinion: Trump and masculinity, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ2h3PX43iE
32:00 Politico: Evangelicals Hate Stormy Daniels But Love Trump. Here’s Why., https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/05/07/stormy-daniels-donald-trump-evangelical-appeal-00156488
48:00 Sociologist Samuel L. Perry on White Christian Nationalism
1:23:00 Samuel L. Perry Lecture: “A House Dividing: Why White Christian Nationalism is Everyone’s Problem”
1:29:00 Niche construction, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_construction
1:36:40 Niche Construction | How Humans Influence Our Own Evolution
1:39:30 Niche Construction, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO9gAtTplsE
PodNotes generated this AI summary: I want to discuss masculinity and its measure: providing for your family. It’s simple—being a man means supporting your wife and kids legally and ethically. If you’re proud of your work, it likely means you’re doing it right.
I’ve learned from personal experience that making money has an uplifting effect on men. After recovering from chronic fatigue syndrome in 1993 with the help of medication, my psychiatrist Daniel Golwyn in Orlando encouraged me to show how much money I could make. Instead, I chased dreams like writing a book and blogging until realizing around 2015 the importance of serious earning.
Making money forces men to engage with the world positively—it demands cooperation, respect for others’ rights, and meeting their needs. This focus pulls men away from selfishness towards service.
Consider this: if you have 100 men where half prioritize religion over earnings while the other half focuses on financial success—I’m more impressed by those who value earning highly. For example, in orthodox Judaism living costs are high; thus prioritizing earning is necessary.
Masculinity also requires male spaces which are increasingly rare due to egalitarian ideals pushing inclusion at all costs. However, distinctions are crucial for civilization—and masculine spaces foster healthiness among men.
In Genesis after Eden’s fall God highlighted our essences—women bear children through pain; men earn bread through sweat.
Lastly regarding Trump—he appeals strongly to certain types of masculinity emphasizing dominance which resonates with many voters despite criticism about performative traits or aggressive posturing as traditional masculinity faces societal scrutiny.
Traditional male roles as family providers are challenged today by economic and social changes, including civil rights movements. Men find it harder to be the sole breadwinner, owning a home and supporting a family. Women adapt well to law-abiding roles in our tech-driven economy.
In right-wing culture, there’s a belief that the left dislikes masculinity. Mainstream religions like Judaism and Christianity no longer reserve rituals for men only, leading to men leaving these faiths. Growing religious groups do offer male-only spaces which appeal to those seeking traditional masculine values.
Figures like Tate, Jordan Peterson, and Joe Rogan claim they’re standing up for men against an anti-masculine worldview. School curriculums don’t cater much to typical male interests like competition or strategy games; instead, they downplay such desires.
There’s also an educational divide where males of European heritage often study out of pure interest rather than grades compared to their Asian counterparts who focus on test outcomes.
Political shifts show young Black and Latino men moving rightward due partly to perceptions of party representation regarding gender issues. Trump’s pre-political celebrity status as a wealthy businessman still influences his political image among evangelicals despite his moral shortcomings because he embodies power and traditional masculinity—a trait admired even if flawed according to some evangelical interpretations of biblical leaders.
The label “evangelical” is becoming more about cultural identity than religious belief among White Americans supportive of Trump—it signifies alignment with conservative Christian values without necessarily involving active religious practice or beliefs.
Finally, this shift towards identifying with Christianity has less theological meaning but more so represents belonging within certain ethnic or national identities in both America and Europe—where being labeled as Christian can equate with not being part of other minority groups.
Political scientists and sociologists measure our party preferences by how much we like our own party versus the opposing one. This measure reveals that white Americans who strongly affirm Christian Nationalism tend to favor Republicans and dislike Democrats, while this effect is not seen in Black Americans.
Chad suggests masculinity involves taking responsibility for others, such as family and community. Political leanings also influence views on individual rights versus group obligations; those on the right emphasize traditional life obligations more than those on the left.
Research shows that when accounting for Christian Nationalism, religious commitment predicts less xenophobia and support for border walls among Christians. Conversely, stronger affirmation of Christian Nationalism correlates with xenophobic attitudes and opposition to gun control measures.
Christian Nationalist rhetoric often evokes a sense of heritage and identity tied to whiteness. It can mask feelings of marginalization among white males who may feel sidelined culturally or socially, leading some towards movements advocating violence or authoritarian control.
Elites benefit from a divided America because it allows them to maintain power through strategic alliances with marginalized groups. Populist movements threaten elite power by uniting citizens against these divisions.
The book “Let Them Eat Tweets” discusses conservatives’ challenge in gaining popular support while protecting elite interests—a dilemma faced in garnering votes without alienating powerful constituents.
Finally, White Christian Nationalism’s narrative overlooks its complicity in historical racial injustices while glorifying an idealized past rooted in biblical principles. Strong group identities often ignore their negative impacts but focusing solely on positive aspects can perpetuate ignorance about systemic issues both historically and currently.
The text discusses the complexities of political and cultural identities, emphasizing that different systems work for different societies at various times. It touches on the adaptability required in response to perceived threats and how this can lead to polarization or unity depending on circumstances. The author references Jonathan Haidt’s work on polarization and his metaphor of an asteroid threatening Earth, suggesting that crises like COVID-19 should bring people together but often do not.
The discussion shifts to American politics, particularly White Christian Nationalism, which is seen as a threat by some due to its influence over institutions like academia, the military, and corporations. There are concerns about authoritarian tendencies being accepted when they align with one’s own views during emergencies.
The concept of niche construction is introduced as a natural phenomenon where organisms modify their environments for better survival prospects. This idea is paralleled with Christian Nationalists’ efforts to shape American society according to their values through legislation and cultural influence.
In conclusion, the text argues that just as animals build habitats for themselves, groups like Christian Nationalists aim to create a societal niche that benefits them while potentially disadvantaging others.
He argued that niche construction and ecological inheritance are key evolutionary processes, a concept also seen in American Christian nationalism. However, I avoid labeling individuals as ‘Christian nationalists’ because such terms aren’t constructive.
Niche construction refers to how organisms alter their environments to benefit themselves through natural selection. Take lactose intolerance: most people globally can’t digest milk after infancy due to the lack of lactase enzyme production. Yet, in areas like Northern Europe where milk was vital for survival during famines, a mutation allowing adults to digest milk offered an advantage and thus spread. Consequently, these regions have lower rates of lactose intolerance compared to places like North Africa and Asia.
Our actions influence our own evolution; what we do today shapes our DNA tomorrow. Despite enthusiasm for revolutionary changes in evolutionary biology, niche construction fits within established theory without causing upheaval.
Evolutionary biology often feels beyond personal control since we can’t change our DNA as easily as improving our bodies or minds through exercise or education. We’re drawn to ideas suggesting we can affect our genetics despite this limitation.
I’ll discuss niche construction further another time—signing off for Shavuot.
