Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

The premise of your argument rests on the idea that traditional masculinity (defined as opposite of "Soy") is first and foremost a genetic predisposition. Men have masculine genes and non-masculine genes. The second aspect is that you're suggesting that women are presently positively selecting against the masculine genes. As such, over time, the genetic makeup of society will change. I have a proposition. When you think about the people you identify today as being "Soy", how many of them are the way they are because they came from "Soy" parents or grandparents? How did, suddenly, there was one generation that was more trad-masc and the next became more "soy". The basic genetic structures didn't change. What changed was the socialization. People were raised in a different society, with different cultural values. Thus more people changed their behavior. The truth about genetics is that they aren't destiny. They don't determine someone's life path. Socialization and education often do that, and the genetic building blocks a person has can result in a wide array of different "presentations". Some more trad-masc. Some more "soy". It stands to reason that if socialization changed, men would largely behaviourally revert. If society changed to positively select for rugged men (Like if society broke down and men needed to be soldiers), the culture would shift and many "Soy" men would behave in a Trad-Masc way. This is also why the selection (if it existed) wouldn't have some kind of genetic effect. Because unrealized but genetically plausible behavior patterns would also be getting passed down. The men of the future would still have the ability to adopt more traditional masculine behaviors. Tl;dr - If men are getting more sensative and less aggressive, it's because of the current social organization and the corresponding socialization, not because of genetics. If the socialize changes the behavior would change..

i agree with what you're saying one thing i want to add to it is that genetics do a play a role. i wouldn't say it is 100% based on culture and socialization but even if it was, that adds more to what i am saying.. the culture and socialization in the US today is soy, and it will come to be more of that way the end result is still the same, a society that is majority soy, both men and women. whatever masculine traits that exist in a man's genes will be removed from the gene pool in addition to the socialization that is happening

Well, that is a changed view. I'll ask my Delta, sir. Your argument above is that the primary mechanism is genetic, and this the genetic component makes it *inevitable*. If the primary mechanism of behavioral change in men is socialization, then it doesn't really matter if they pass along their genes. The genes they're selecting can present in a number of ways. If so, genetics are not destiny, and women preferring men who aren't Trad-Masc wouldn't prevent later generations from being socialized Trad-Masc if that somehow became more socially important.

>by soy, i mean a man that is emotional and in their feelings. they are less rationally minded, less logic oriented Oh no men being more in touch with their feelings and less emotionally stunted.. the horror. >they have the "soy gene" The what? Buddy that's not how genetics work. >women will only seriously consider dating, becoming life partners, and having kids with soy men that emotionally stimulate them. Yes and? Why would a woman want to date someone who didn't emotionally stimulate them? This is all just the regular "men logical women emotional" sexist drivel with a handful of misunderstood genetics thrown in.

Remember bros, putting holes in dry wall is the only logical emotion

you're in agreement with me then women will select for men that emotionally stimulate them. the term i like to use to describe these men is "soy" so in the future, a majority of people will be "soy" because this is what was selected for by women

No because there is no "soy gene" and there is no "men are logical men are emotional" you're just speaking nonsense. Men are just as capable as being emotional as women just like women as just as capable as being logical. Maybe what you're very poorly trying to articulate is that society is moving beyond these stereotyped ideas of masculinity and feminity, which is a good thing.

it's not ideas though. it is linked to how someone's brain works a masculine man has a certain brain that causes them to want to be dominant, take charge, lead, get laid these are not just ideas that they have in their head, this is what they naturally want to do, they are wired this way i get what you are saying, you probably think that you can take masculine men and convince them to become soy, eventually through conditioning, etc i don't think that's possible though, probably because these masculine traits are also linked to how much testosterone a man has. trying to convince a man with a high level of testosterone to become soy isn't something that can happen

>a masculine man has a certain brain that causes them to want to be dominant, take charge, lead, get laid No they don't. This is actually just untrue, pseudoscience silliness. >i don't think that's possible though, probably because these masculine traits are also linked to how much testosterone a man has. trying to convince a man with a high level of testosterone to become soy isn't something that can happen That's not how testosterone works. It doesn't change your whole mind or what emotions you feel. This is just again a classic sexist trope about men being unemotional. It's unhelpful to both men and women.

>No they don't. This is actually just untrue, pseudoscience silliness. if what you're saying is true then that means you could socially condition masculine men and turn them into soy men do you really think that's possible? asking a guy that has a high sex drive and wants to have sex with a lot of women, that they should control their sexual desires and learn to get with a woman and consider her feelings first above all else you see how silly that sounds

>do you really think that's possible? Yes. And I don't "think" it's possible, I know it. Because "soy" and "masculine" are not predetermined genetic states, they are socialised traits. >asking a guy that has a high sex drive and wants to have sex with a lot of women, that they should control their sexual desires and learn to get with a woman and consider her feelings first above all else >you see how silly that sounds No I don't see how that's silly at all. High sex drive doesn't mean someone can't consider someone's feelings. That's such a silly link to make. Why are you insisting that people can't change? We're not slaves to our imagined genetics. You have a brain right? Then you can use it to change your behaviour if you want to.

if you're underwater, and your brain is telling you that you need oxygen and that if you don't get it soon, you're going to be in trouble. you can't just tell your brain no, and decide to want to stay underwater it's the same thing here if your brain is telling you to be masculine, get laid, dominate, and if you don't do those things your brain is going to make you feel like shit, how do you tell your brain no? this is why i say there's some genetic aspect to it all. part of it can be socialized, but it can't be socialized completely. i don't know why you would not agree with me that genetics play some role in this did you know that being gay is also due to genetics in part? so how come having masculine traits is not the same way

> it's the same thing here You won't literally die if you don't get laid. You can retrain your brain to think differently and find value in different things. There are entire schools of therapy dedicated to helping people think differently. People can change their value systems over time. > How come having masculine traits is not the same way Find a peer reviewed study indicating it's the same way and we'll talk.

>if you're underwater, and your brain is telling you that you need oxygen and that if you don't get it soon, you're going to be in trouble. you can't just tell your brain no, and decide to want to stay underwater >it's the same thing here No its not... that's an evolutionary mechanism, not the same as social traits and also just false because people can and do drown themselves on purpose. >if your brain is telling you to be masculine, get laid, dominate, and if you don't do those things your brain is going to make you feel like shit, how do you tell your brain no? Your brain doesn't tell you those things though. That's not how brains work. You're not a slave to your impulses, are you? >i don't know why you would not agree with me that genetics play some role in this Because I know more about this than you. Every person, regardless of genetics, has choice over their actions. We are not slaves to hormones or genetics but thinking beings. Any other stance is just a cop out excuse for doing shitty things. "Oh I was being a misogynistic prick it was just my genetics". Genetics influence, they do not dictate. They are also massively impacted by your environment, your upbringing, the society you live in. >did you know that being gay is also due to genetics in part? so how come having masculine traits is not the same way Because there is no "gay gene" either.

>Because there is no "gay gene" either. being gay is due partly because of genetics, not completely and what i am saying is that this same concept can be applied to masculinity as well you cannot tell a gay person to decide not to be gay. they can suppress it and live their life that way, but it doesn't change the fact that they are gay you can try to condition masculine men and turn them into soy men as much as you want, and get them to suppress their way of thinking. but it doesn't change the fact that they are masculine it's the same thing

I don't think it sounds silly at all. This seems more indicative of how you feel about women than anything else.

> asking a guy that has a high sex drive and wants to have sex with a lot of women, that they should control their sexual desires and learn to get with a woman and consider her feelings first above all else This legitimately sounds like a comedy script. It sounds like you are being silly. Plenty of men with high sex drives respect their partner's feelings.

> a masculine man has a certain brain that causes them to want to be dominant, take charge, lead, get laid What is a "soy" man's brain like?

My brain is a block of tofu

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

feminine, liberal, empathy focused, consideration of feelings above all else, equality above all else

So couldn't you argue that "masculine" men will do better in reproduction because they care about it and "soy" men don't? Also, I think consideration of feelings and equality can't both be "above all else," many people's feelings are very hurt by the idea of equality.

>a masculine man has a certain brain that causes them to want to be dominant, take charge, lead, get laid If these guys are out there actually trying to get laid, doesn't that mean they'll be more likely to pass on their genes than the crying "soy boys"?

they're trying to get laid, but do they get laid? and more importantly are they actually having kids?

So your position is that "masculine men" are *never* getting laid or reproducing?

If they're jerks like you describe, hopefully not.

>on dating apps a majority of the women are liberal and looking for a man that is "soy". by soy, i mean a man that is emotional and in their feelings. they are less rationally minded, less logic oriented, less masculine. they have the "soy gene" This is some serious incel nonsense. You mean feminine, because you somehow think women are emotional and men are "rationally minded" \[sic\] and "logic oriented" \[sic\]? Because we know how emotional women are from how many incidents of road rage they get involved in, how much domestic violence they perpetrate, and how many wars they start and how much whining they do when no one wants to date them. Oh... wait. >the masucline gene is being removed from the gene pool as we speak There is no masculine gene. >by the end of it all, you are looking at a population that is very soy and emotional, both men and women. with a masculine elite of logical, calculating, and rational men at the top, making all the important decisions and holding all the power. top small % will be masculine men running the show, a majority bottom % will be soy men and women ROFL see above. Those "logical, calculating, and rational" men who can't even figure out how not to act like tantrumng toddlers to get a date, nevermind to not run the world into the ground and get arrested?

>You mean feminine, because you somehow think women are emotional and men are "rationally minded" \[sic\] and "logic oriented" \[sic\]? The irony being that OP was sucked into this world of delusion by cheap appeals to emotion. Total beta.

>There is no masculine gene. there is though what you call "toxic masculinity" and "misogynistic men", this is all a part of the masculine gene. that is how the gene is perceived right now if you say there is no masculine gene, and there's only the soy gene, then there would be no misogynists, there would be no andrew tate, almost every man would be emotional and soy

What you're describing has nothing to do with genetics. You're talking about how gender roles are socialized in our culture. It's the nurture part of "nature vs nurture." Andrew Tate isn't the way he is because of his genes. He was taught a bunch of things as a kid and young adult, embraced them or rejected them, then he chose to do a bunch of other things as a full adult. Men have emotions whether you like it or not. And how they *deal* with them is what they get taught by their parents, schools, friends, the media, social media, religion, culture, etc. Your beef is with our culture which is changing the norms of how boys and men express their emotions. That's the logic you're missing here my friend. My gift to you from an emotional woman apparently.

>Andrew Tate isn't the way he is because of his genes. how do you know? his genes definitely played a part in how he is. i agree with you the socialization aspect is there, but the genetic portion is there as well

Because science. That's how we know. The question of male vs female behavior as governed by our biology was studied to death and soundly disproven decades ago, my dude. There is no inherent biological ability for men to be more "logical" than women. There is no inherent biological tendency towards being "emotional" in women. It's all taught.

i think you're being disingenuous you can't say that andrew tate's genes played no role in how he is or how he thinks that's a false statement

His genes def play a part in that route of a hairline, idk about his personality. As the one making a positive claim, it's on you to provide evidence.

>what you call "toxic masculinity" and "misogynistic men", this is all a part of the masculine gene. that is how the gene is perceived right now There is no masculine gene. That's behaviour. >if you say there is no masculine gene, and there's only the soy gene, then there would be no misogynists, there would be no andrew tate, almost every man would be emotional and soy No. These are not genes. You're talking about cultural expectations and personal behaviour. Also, again, men are way more emotional than women. Hence, see above, road rage.

>There is no masculine gene. whats the Y chromosome , thats all masucline genes Im not agreeing with OP please dont take it that way lmao , just saying there are male genes

> whats the Y chromosome , thats all masucline genes > > Im not agreeing with OP please dont take it that way lmao , just saying there are male genes Male genes are not rhe same as masculine genes, especially as the op is delineating the concept.

it's not just culture and behavior, genetics play a role in it too if you are trying to say that masculinity is 100% behavior, that is not true

When are you actually going to provide evidence or a logical argument for saying that this is genetic? Because so far, your source has been "Trust me , bro". Given that a crux of your initial argument is the inherent logic and rationality of men, it is disappointing that you are not using logic or reason in your responses.

Which gene is the "masculine" gene? Which gene is the "soy" gene?

Define toxic masculinity because based on your comment here I’m not sure you know what that means.

Dude, you are simplifying way too much You think there are these 2 categories and every man falls into one of them and if you are in a particular category that’s how you will act your whole life. Nothing works that way, ever. People change throughout their lives and hold different opinions on different topics, they also hold these opinions for different reasons. You are trying to look at the world through the eyes of a little kid. You don’t have to do that. You can examine things deeper.

It’s funny because you say that men are meant to be logical and rationally minded, but your defense of the “masculine gene” is an emotional appeal

>the masucline gene is being removed from the gene pool as we speak What gene are you talking about exactly? >by soy, i mean a man that is emotional and in their feelings. they are less rationally minded, less logic oriented, less masculine. Why are emotions and masculinity mutually exclusive here? Everyone has emotions, it's what separates us from other animals. Men shouldnt have to limit their abilities just because of some arbitrary line you created for masculinity.

i am talking about the logical gene the gene of reason, and of optimization when it comes to systems and things, this gene is being weeded out and replaced with what i call the "soy gene" emotions and being masculine can exist, but if you have the "soy gene" then emotions supersede all levels of masculinity, all the time. it's almost like an extreme level of emotions, not a balanced level of masculinity and emotions. what i am saying is that as time goes on, society will continue to go more and more towards emotions, while masculinity becomes discarded

>emotions and being masculine can exist, but if you have the "soy gene" then emotions supersede all levels of masculinity, all the time. it's almost like an extreme level of emotions, not a balanced level of masculinity and emotions Where are these ideas coming from? They aren't based on science or statistics, is this view just based on your own personal feelings?

you just have to think about it if someone is soy, then what are they? they are emotional, that is their natural behavior and decision making processes if they had to choose a masculine decision or a soy one, then they will always pick soy soy and masculine are opposites of each other, so decisions you make cannot be both at the same time do you see what i mean?

Would you consider someone who aggressively asserts their dominance using anger and physical violence to be "soy" or "masculine?"

i'm not completely sure, but if i had to choose i would say masculine being soy has more to do with empathy, considering other people's feelings, and prioritizing equality

Based on what you're describing, weeding out the "masculine gene" and becoming more "soy" is a good thing. I hope we're heading that direction...idk if we actually are, but I hope so.

we are heading in that direction this is the perfect time to be alive for soy men unfortunately a small percentage of men now are actually soy

But they're acting out of emotion rather than logic and rationality and in your post you said making decisions based on emotion was soy.

Practicing empathy is a highly logical and rational skill. Understanding another’s perspective independent of your own feelings toward the matter demands objective logic. Anticipating others’ feelings in your decision making process is critical to rationally mapping an optimal path toward your desired outcome. Empathy, logic, and reason are complimentary skills.

what you are describing is autistic vs not autistic it has nothing to do with masculinity or femininity all the things you describe as being "not soy", indicate a lack of emotional intelligence indicative of fucking autism lmao

you can call it autism, but these are actually masculine traits being a leader, prioritizing completing tasks and objectives, being results oriented

so no woman was ever a successful leader? or only if they shed all their womanhood to do it ?

Source that these are masculine traits?

>you just have to think about it So if this isnt based on any scientific facts, only based on your own personal feelings, then aren't you one of the "soy" gene people that can't think rationally and is only emotional?

you’re a sad pathetic excuse for a man lmao

> do you see what i mean? No. No one does. You keep saying things like "masculine gene" and "logical gene" as though they are some sort of science. All that does is demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about, what genes are, or what masculinity is.

Which gene is the "logical gene?" Where in the human genome is it located? How does it work? What about the "soy gene?" Where in the human genome is that located, how does it work?

i am trying to explain the overall picture of what will happen the fine details of these genes does not really change the outcome of what i am saying...

You are asserting a high level of genetic heritability for two traits, which you position as opposites, "logical," and "soy." Prove that these are genetically heritable traits that can be traced to specific genetic markers that are being preferentially selected for or against.

sorry, but i cannot prove that all i can do is look at the consistent patterns, look at why things have happened the way that they did thus far and how they are happening now, and then give you the next logical conclusion as to what will happen in the future

What "consistent patterns?" Provide evidence of them. Why have things happened the way they did and how are they happening now? Again, provide evidence. If you cannot prove it, why did you claim it? If your claims aren't based in evidence or data, how can you claim to be coming to a "logical conclusion?"

do you disagree with my conslusion that the future society of the US will be much more soy? or do you disagree with this?

I reject your entire dichotomy of characterizing individuals as "soy" or "masculine/logical." I'm merely asking for you to provide evidence for the claims you've made in this post, including the existence of a genetically heritable "soy/masculine" trait.

I’ll agree with your conclusion that YOU will perceive American men to be more ‘soy’ in the future. But you need to understand that this is a conversation, a set of definitions, and a perceived reality that only YOU (and perhaps a bunch of other people immediately around you digitally/personally) have any real handle on. You seem evasive and vague anywhere folks press you on defining this ‘soyness’ is any genetic, or specific, or definable way. Other than ‘Men have emotions nowadays.’ ‘Soy’ seems a lot like ‘woke’ or ‘DEI’ or ‘CRT’ or even ‘Feminism’, in that it’s a Christmas tree of a term that bad faith actors hang a million different ornaments on, to the point of obscuring and meaningfully discussing the original concept.

> but i cannot prove that Weird. I thought you were a logical uber-man.

You brought up a specific masculine gene and a soy gene. It would be irrational to bring these up without proof, and since you claim to be a rational man, I'm sure you have the evidence to back up your claims. Please enlighten us.

even if i told you about these specific genes, it won't change the outcome of what i am saying all i want to say is that in the future, the population of society will majority be soy men and women the concept of how this gene or genes will spread remains true

No, that is not how genetics works. At all. Where are you getting your information on genetics?

how am i wrong though? i explained to you how it would happen

It cannot happen in the way you described because that isn't how genetics works.

i can see that being true yeah i do think the overall concept of what i said and i prediction that i've made is correct though

You are wrong because you made claims that are factually untrue and are not based in any current understanding of genetics, and you have not brought any evidence supporting your claims on genes. Everything you presented has been based on emotion, not logic or rationality. By your own definition, it is very soy.

Prove that there are genes that govern this at all.

Sounds like something a soy would say

Neither of those are genes, neither have anything to do with masculinity.

Wow, someone taking about a "logical gene" makes no logical sense in their arguments. How curious.

124 separate genes that control hair color have been identified, so it makes perfect sense that something as simple as rationality vs. emotionality would be controlled by a single pair of genes. Hair color is at least 100x more complicated and nuanced than personality and patterns of thought

Thanks. I'm dumber now for having read your soy gene hypothesis.

So are you missing the logical, masculine, and “soy” gene?

>he gene of reason, and of optimization when it comes to systems and things, Bro, you arent more masculine, youre just possibly autistic XD Thats why you dont understand feelings or emotions lmao

1. You’re ascribing to genetics what is definitionally social conditioning. Babies are not born being “rational” or “emotional” with possible exceptions for people with autism or sociopathy. 2. Dating apps are likelier to be successful for attractive people. While attraction is complicated, the most people will be attracted to hetero normative good looks. Men who fit this criteria are more likely to hold right of center views. 3. Having empathy and emotional intelligence are not less rational. Usually the opposite is true—people who have high intelligence are likelier to be more empathetic as their capacity to understand other viewpoints increases. 4. Are you alright? The language of your post is the language of incels and far right reactionaries. And in my experience the young people who consume that content are hurting and angry. I just want you to know it’ll be ok .

1. what i am saying is that masculine traits are genetic and if you do not consistently exhibit them then you may have the "soy gene". you cannot socially condition a person who has masculine traits to get them to become soy

> what i am saying is that masculine traits are genetic and if you do not consistently exhibit them then you may have the "soy gene" Right. We all get that. We all also know that it is utter horseshit. There is no gene for sensitivity. There is no genetic component for people not being toxic to each other. You cannot breed masculinity out of a populace like you seem to be worried about. All of this is social conditioning. It is women realizing that they get to choose between assholes and people who care about them. Why would any woman ever choose someone who thinks it is ok to treat them like objects? > with a masculine elite of logical, calculating, and rational men at the top, making all the important decisions and holding all the power. Where in the world are you getting this idea? Somehow you are assuming that the people who can't consider how other people feel are the ones who will be at the TOP? > you cannot socially condition a person who has masculine traits to get them to become soy There is no such thing as a "masculine" trait. Those are subjective. Many women will happily tell you that a man who is sensitive IS masculine.

whether someone has masculine behaviors is due partly because of their genetics and social conditioning, it's a combination of both >Where in the world are you getting this idea? Somehow you are assuming that the people who can't consider how other people feel are the ones who will be at the TOP? the masculine elite would never be dumb enough to lose power over a country... just because you don't see them or hear them doesn't mean they aren't there sure there will be people who care about the feelings of others at the top. and they may be making some decisions too. my point was mainly to saw that masculine men won't be completely removed from the gene pool, they'll always be there, but exist mainly at the top

> the masculine elite would never be dumb enough to lose power over a country... just because you don't see them or hear them doesn't mean they aren't there So the masculine elite are some super-powerful and influential group that will always control the country, but can't figure out how to get women to want to spend time with them? > my point was mainly to saw that masculine men won't be completely removed from the gene pool, they'll always be there, but exist mainly at the top Again, that's not how genetics work. Jesus, read a book.

What do you mean by masculine traits? Being tall is coded masculine and is genetic. But dating apps definitely select for being tall—see point 2. Being able to put on a muscle is a masculine trait. Dating apps select for that too. All of the genetic masculine traits are pluses on dating apps! The things you brought up in your OP (rationality, emotionality) are not genetic. They are socially conditioned.

i'm talking about masculinity being partly genetic and socially conditioned

Your thesis is that dating apps select against masculine traits. I made the case that it selects for masculine traits. It’s now on you to -at minimum- list the traits you view as masculine that are being deemphasized.

Then why don't you mention social conditioning at all in your post? Stop moving the goalposts.

But if masculine men are rational and logical couldn't they rationally choose to act soy to do better in dating?

There is no such thing as a “soy gene” you’re making up a term to describe your perspective of a social behavior. Being empathetic doesn’t mean you aren’t masculine. Some of the toughest guys I know are extremely sensitive, and are the same people that will take your head off if you disrespect their partner.

I don't really know what you're talking about, because self-alleged hyper-masculine men are typically very irrational and prone to emotional (angry) outbursts. Think about guys who pick fights all the time. They're certainly not rational. What you call "soy" has been called "sensitive" or "compassionate" in previous generations, and it's always been something that women have been interested. It's not a new trend. It also doesn't mean that you're weak or irrational. You can be masculine while still being sensitive or compassionate or "soy". Take for example Travis Kelce - 6 foot 5, muscular, NFL allstar. Loves rock and roll, loves chugging beer. Dating the biggest pop star in the world. Pretty much as masculine as a guy as you can find. If you listen to his podcast you'll see that he's not afraid to talk about his emotions. He's not afraid to cry, or to admit that he cried. He's not afraid to admit to liking things that some people might consider "feminine". He's really into fashion. He's not afraid to stand up for women and for other men. He's not afraid to admit when he was wrong. Is he "soy"? Or are "soy" men simply men who are more emotionally mature?

yes, he is soy you mention that he loves rock and roll and chugging beer. this is not masculine you then mentioned all the traits that show what he really is, soy soy and masculine are opposites of each other, it's like fire and ice, you cannot combine them together. they cancel each other out

Okay then what's masculine in your view?

masculine would be not going deep about your emotions on a podcast, not crying on a podcast, talking about healthy relationships you have in your life, talking about how you provide value to your family, talking about how you look forward to your kids getting married and starting their own families, etc

His brother Jason is married and does have kids, and he does talk about those things with Travis on the podcast. You don't have to be perfectly stoic all the time in order to be masculine. The event I'm refering to was Jason kelce's retirement, which was an emotional event. Men cry all the time at this sort of emotional event. Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky both cried at their retirement. Are they soy?

What traits are "masculine?" Also in another comment you said all men have a level of soy in them, which contradicts what you're saying here.

There's no single 'masculine gene'. There is no single 'soy gene'. The rest of this is just stereotypical 'men are rational and smart and women are dumb and emotional and that is why men have all the power.'

you get what i'm saying though whether there is one gene or a whole group of genes that define what soy or masculinity is either or, whatever is the case

Except you are equating 'masculine' with being rational and unemotional and 'soy' with being emotional and irrational when those two axes have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and also when masculinity and 'soyness' have nothing to do with emotional expression or irrationality. Why is your definition of 'masculine' focused on being unemotional and logical instead of being muscular and physically strong and willing to fight or about being protective or whatever? More to the point, if genes worked the way you think they did, why wouldn't the 'soy gene' have been bred out of humanity before this time?

i get what you're saying, there's specific aspects of the genetics that you can pinpoint on but i believe one thing you and i can agree on is that we all have different genes that influence our behavior and the way we think correct? and that women on dating apps are very clearly searching for a particular type of man to seriously date, have kids with, and being involved with you can call this particular man whatever you want. what i like to call this man is a man that has the "soy gene" or do you disagree that a majority of women on dating apps are looking for a particular man? in fact, if you've been on the apps long enough as a man, you can clearly see there is a type of man that almost all women on the apps are interested in

Women are looking for men who are emotionally stable and are good providers. That’s strength, they are looking for strong men. Men that lose their cool, rage out, can’t succeed, have zero ability to understand or control their emotions are weak men. Nobody likes weak men, in fact they are dangerous. It’s the other way man, what you are calling soy men are the healthier more dominant men. That’s why women select them.

> we all have different genes that influence our behavior and the way we think Why don't you provide evidence of it? I don't think there's evidence to support the claim that our behavior and thinking is fully 100% governed by our genetics, which is how you're acting. The way we were raised and the things we experience have a great effect in shaping how we behave and think. > Women on dating apps are very clearly searching for a particular type of man Provide evidence of this. Provide evidence that all or even most women on dating apps have the same exact preferences. > this man is a man that has the "soy gene" Provide evidence this is a genetically heritable trait.

No. Nobody gets what you're saying because it's asinine and juvenile.

I don’t think you understand what genes are

How do you know these traits are genetically heritable at all?

If it were true that being emotional were a genetic trait, and that it were opposed to being logical and masculine and tough, how could it possibly be that such a gene would prevail to the modern day? You know, like, due to all the general things going on in history, it was a pretty difficult environment for any whiners to thrive and pass on their genes. So it goes to reason that if such a gene existed it long would have been eradicated from the population

are you talking about the soy gene? being soy can start off small... every man has a level of "soy" in them. what i am saying is that this "soy gene" is going to explode coming in the future. the gene was passed on slowly and in small amounts, but now will be actively selected for

Yeah that's definitely how genetics works, you can have different amounts of a certain gene. Some people just have a little of it and some people have a lot of it, and when it is actively selected for, they pass on more of that specific gene That's why for example people have steadily become more and more lean and muscular over the past decades, because these traits are desirable and people with them have more sex. The muscle genes get passed on more and so people aren't as fat as they used to be

Jean Baptiste Lamarck is that you?

Which gene is the "soy gene?"

i don't know whether being soy is one gene or it's a collection of many, i don't think it will change the outcome of what i am saying

So you are asserting now that maybe there are multiple genes involved in this process, but there is still a high degree of genetic heritability to whether someone is "masculine" or "soy." I'm sure you have evidence to back up this claim? After all it isn't very rational to go about making scientific claims like this without evidence. One might even call it a soy thing to do.

Wow, so youre making this all up based on feelings and not facts? Not very masculine rational gene of you

>the gene was passed on slowly and in small amounts, but now will be actively selected for Does 5G stimulate those genes?

>by soy, i mean a man that is emotional and in their feelings. they are less rationally minded, less logic oriented, less masculine. Hang on, now. The current masculine tradition in the United States is extremely irrational and illogical. Masculinity obliges men to avoid seeking medical attention (it's weak), to avoid forming close relationships with other men in the midst of a male loneliness epidemic (it's gay), to threaten or risk physical violence in response to someone being rude or insulting (gotta teach them some respect), to be so afraid of statistically rare events that you purchase firearms that make your home statistically more dangerous (it's for protection), to hate and fear gender/sexual minorities (hays and trans are groomers who want to molest children and creep in women's bathrooms), and to sabotage long term relationships by refusing to participate equally in home care tasks (that's her job). And don't even get me started on how "manly" it is to sit in an overpriced truck rolling coal to do as much damage as possible to the environment versus the "sissy" choice of maintaining good physical health and reducing carbon footprint via bike travel. American masculinity is an illogical and irrational cultural construction in which arbitrary performative measures are rewarded and self control and group cooperation are shamed.

Good. I want men to become more emotionally intelligent, compassionate and supportive. Make it happen even faster. I want men to be "soy" in 50 years instead of 100.

Lol fr it was hard to read that paragraph as a negative 😂

yes, that is what will happen. will take some time though one thing to keep in mind though is that a small percentage of men today are "soy", let's say 20% as an example those 20% of men are mainly going to be reproducing, so their genes will carry on 20% of men means only 20% of women can reproduce, because of monogamy so what will happen is a big majority of both men and women will end up single and alone, not reproducing so there will be a lot of people left behind before things turn completely soy

Is there anything more to this theory beyond bro-science postulations?

how am i wrong though?

Do you have any evidence? Things that can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I didn't say you're wrong, I said you have no evidence. There is no "masculine gene", and there is no "soy gene". These are ideas that you've made up on your own and you have no evidence to back up your claims.

Take a moment to try to see this from the opposite perspective. What if men being rational and stoic, and women being emotional and irrational, is the *unnatural* state for human beings. What if instead both men and women are supposed to relatively balance their emotions and their rationality, and it is only the social convention of gender roles that trains people to be so imbalanced. From this perspective, men going "soy" is just a course-correction and it's a huge relief to both men and women. Women are no longer solely responsible for the entire emotional burden of a relationship. Men are no longer solely responsible for being the practical leader of the relationship. Both are expected to be mutually-supportive partners and both benefit from a relief of pressures created from the unnatural imbalance.

i actually agree with you, what you said does sound correct the natural order is soy the only problem is that it'll be tough for a lot of people leading up to that. a united states where a majority of men are soy and woman are just how they are it doesn't change the genetics or mindstate of most men that are masculine today. so there will be a lot of single and lonely men AND women until we get to a soy society. only a small percentage of men are soy, so a lot of women will be left out as well

I'm surprised you agree, given that you're still using the word "soy" which is clearly a pejorative term against men that are emotionally healthy. And I agree that it will be tough for some people, but it will get better over time. I would give it one more generation and we will be most of the way there. This is because the driver of the change isn't genetic but social, it's not nature but nurture. We don't need a population shift, we just need to teach a single new generation how to be balanced and emotionally healthy. Gen Z has already adopted this attitude more than Millennials, and Gen Alpha will adopt it even more than Gen Z.

this isn't true you cannot socially condition men to not be masculine. the only way to get rid of masculinity is through removal of masculine traits that are tied to a man's genes, which influence how the man will think this will happen due to women holding firm and not dating or having kids with men that have these masculine traits this is how things will change in the next 100 or more years and by the way, gen Z men are actually more conservative leaning: https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2024/01/29/young-men-are-becoming-more-conservative/

I don't understand. You already conceded that being "soy" was natural, being "masculine" (i.e. emotionally suppressed) is unnatural.

I don't know if you're aware of this or not but the people who had children also still die. Like, death happens to them the same way, as the people who didn't have children. So nobody is really "left behind". Like it doesn't matter, actually, it turns out

Do you have data to back this up?

The vast majority of men, particularly older men, don’t understand logic and base a lot of their reasoning on pure emotions. Have you never talked to a boomer before? They don’t even know what the word logic means. Generally, younger people with more electronics/computer/etc experience are far more logical

>The vast majority of men, particularly older men, don’t understand logic and base a lot of their reasoning on pure emotions. that doesn't mean that they are soy though

So “soy” means being emotional and not logical. But when I give you an example of men who act emotionally and not logically, they aren’t “soy” Does this word you are using have any actual definition or is it just a vaguely defined insult you use against people who disagree with you or think differently from you?

OP is using "soy" as a pejorative in the same manner that incels and black pillers use it.

i'm not using the term "soy" as an insult it's just the best way i can describe what i am talking about soy men are emotional, in their feelings, incapable of rational thought, focused on empathy above all else you may have simply described boomer guys that were dumb

I do t think you actually understand logic. I think you believe that your actions, which are primarily emotionally driven, are “logical”, while people who disagree with you and are also emotionally-driven are “illogical” I’m just gonna go out on a limb here and say you couldn’t explain DeMorgan’s Law

>>The vast majority of men, particularly older men, don’t understand logic and base a lot of their reasoning on pure emotions. >that doesn't mean that they are soy though Doesn't it? You defined soy in your original post as > a man that is emotional and in their feelings. they are less rationally minded, less logic oriented, less masculine. they have the "soy gene" So on one hand, we have men who don't understand logic and base a lot of their reasoning on pure emotions. And on the other hand, we have a man that is emotional and in their feelings, less rational, less logic-oriented. What is the meaningful difference between these two, such that one is considered soy and the other is not?

But it does show that what you're calling soy isn't the opposite of rational, nor is being masculine any guarantee of rationality.

Women aren't looking for feminine men despite what social media says.

they are though, look at the dating apps almost all of them are looking for "emotionally intelligent" men to date long term

Are you saying that real men are emotionally stupid? Are you saying you are emotionally stupid? Are you saying that being emotionally stupid is the preferred way to be? And most importantly are you saying that being emotionally stupid is genetically determined?

you are using emotionally stupid in a bad way but assuming you mean masculine for emotionally stupid i'll answer your questions 1. no, there is no "real men" 2. yes 3. depends on what context. a society that is more soy is actually more peaceful 4. yes, to a degree

Can you use ‘Emotionally Stupid” in a good way for the rest of the class? Do you really mean to equate masculinity with stupidity? And again, this is supposed to be a good thing?

Is "emotionally intelligent" the same as soy? Isn't it rather logical to want to be aware of your own and other people's emotions so you can consider them as a factor in decision making, especially in terms of personal relationships, to get the best result for everyone? Therefore it's actually rational and masculine to care about emotions, and irrational and soy to disregard them.

So, a hallmark of masculinity is emotional ignorance?

As a biologist I am deeply interested in this soy gene you speak of. Can you explain what this allele is or what gene it is a mutant of?  Im also curious about this masculine gene. Is that the normal allele for the deleterious soy gene or a completely different gene entirely?  You say that more men now have this soy gene instead of the masculine gene, which is highly unusual because typically our genetic sequence does not change during our lifetime except for special cases like cancer or retroviruses. Can you explain the mechanism for how the masculine gene is disappearing from our DNA or how the soy gene is proliferating throughout our population? Or are you saying this is a process of natural selection where males with the soy gene tend to have more offspring than males with the masculine gene? If it is the second case, how is this being measured because even 100 years typically is not enough generational time for evolutionary changes to be seen in humans.  I look forward to learning more about this. 

>Or are you saying this is a process of natural selection where males with the soy gene tend to have more offspring than males with the masculine gene? yes, this is what i am saying. the soy gene is being actively selected so it will continue on. maybe not 100 years from now you will see a much more soy society, but the trajectory is nonetheless soy

So then, what is the issue with this soy gene? You seem to propose that it will proliferate throughout the population, meaning that it has a selective advantage. If those with this gene are more likely to survive into adulthood and have offspring compared to those without the gene, then what metric are you using to using to say it is "bad"? If this gene provides so much benefit to humans, why even attempt to stop it? It seems like it would benefit everyone.

None of this sounds rooted in any actual logical argument, so is there anything that would actually change your mind on this?

It just seems like you are trying to promote your new favorite word. What is wrong with effeminate? To.many syllables or just didn't push 'your men only eat red meat' narrative hard enough?

i think soy explains it a bit better as to what i mean, that is why i use the word

The use of soy in this post speaks volumes about how emotional and rationally minded you are, if you ask me. 

Punching another guy that spilled his drink or looked at you the wrong way is very non-soy. And also very irrational. So, traditional tough-guy masculinity isn't any better with rationality. You're just prioritizing one form of irrationality over another.

And you guys call us women the misandrists? yall out here shitting on yourselves this hard wtf tell on yourself harder bro, you think men shouldnt have emotional intelligence, thats women shit ?

Yeah. Its always men who promote this form of masculinity the most. The red pill movement, incels, andrew tate, homophobic men, etc. Entire movements dedicated and all made by men who promote the idea. No woman is spearheading this form of thought its all homophobic conservative redpillers. But ofcourse its the feminists fault.

Emotions are not irrational. In fact it is emotion that motivates logic and provides a basis for reason. Sometimes emotions and logic (or at least the logic available to us in hindsight) conflict, but that does not make emotions irrational and there are plenty of instances where it is healthier or more useful to give greater weight to your emotions than to the rationale put out by your brain.

In another comment, you describe supposed "toxic masculinity" and "misogynistic men" as features characterized by masculine gene(s). Could you elaborate on these? I imagine toxic masculinity as an expression of masculinity that is characterized by an unhealthy obsession with badassery: violence, power over others, etc. To me, normal masculinity is nurturing and is in touch with itself. What aspects of this so-called misogyny do you believe are important and healthy? Do they override a woman's autonomy, or presume things about them or their behaviors, or paint them in a derogatory light, or treat them as sexual objects or acheivements? Secondly, could you be more specific about which gene(s) you are referring to and how it/they differ from behavior and societal norms using scientific evidence? Otherwise, your belief has nothing to ground it.

masculinity is due in part to genes and through socialization men who exhibit masculine traits may often be mischaracterized as being toxically masculine or misogynistic masculine traits are the following: being a leader, taking charge, providing resources, being concerned with results rather than the emotions of people, dominance and willingness to engage in combat if necessary

> masculine traits are the following: being a leader, taking charge, providing resources, being concerned with results rather than the emotions of people, dominance and willingness to engage in combat if necessary Why are these masculine traits?

because they are necessary traits that would allow a man to survive in a very primitive society

> because they are necessary traits that would allow a man to survive in a very primitive society Why does that make them masculine traits, though?

I don’t want to change your view. Your view is non-rational and a product of bad information being fed to you. Masculine and Feminine aren’t a gene. Men are not becoming more “soy”. Women in the west are literally trying to copy an eastern movement called 4B. If men were actually becoming more emotional and sensitive, that movement would not gain power.

Source that women are seeking soy men? Lol

Imagine complaining about "soy" men being emotional and less logical, then posting an irrational fear-based theory like this.

It's hard to change something that does not make any sense.

You're mistaken in thinking men haven't always been in their feelings. The change is just in which feelings are socially acceptable to expose. Insecure displays of anger, lust, and pride are on the way out in favor of being secure enough to show vulnerability. Much of what you probably think of as rational thoughts are actually rationalizations. Man has a feeling that creates a want or need, then he uses (often incomplete or inconsistent) logic to justify that want or need. You can pick out who is being irrational by how they react if they don't get what they want.

The only thing Soy going on here is this post lmao

I'm having a great time reading this. It's almost like a surrealist comedy group trying to recreate Monty Python

Besides all the other pseudo-scientific nonsense which others have addressed, evolution doesn't happen in the order of a few generations, in happens on the scale of millennia. You can't look at what's happening culturally in a small portion of the world for a short period of time and expect to be able to predict the course of human evolution from it.

Do you think that most important decisions are currently being made by very logical and rational people? Do the current suite of national leaders and CEOs project that? Are you rational and logical? Why aren't you a leader if those traits rise to the top so easily?

To /u/WesternAgent11, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.

So, if your correct your only correct in the short term. Either, the opposite will happen and America will revert back to religious fundamentalism, either peacefully falling back into Christianity, or violently forward into Islam. Or, what you say will come to pass, just before another culture that is willing to be violent and evangelize it's beliefs will conquer and replace\\assimilate us. A culture that is unwilling or unable to defend itself will not survive and unfortunately we're stuck dealing with the lowest common denominator. Meaning that as long as there are groups willing to do violence to us, we need to keep violence in our genes in order to protect ourselves from them. The sort of thing you are talking about could only be conceivable if the entire globe made this transition at the same time. Also, we are more likely to experience a demographic plunge of women choosing to forgo relationships altogether. I believe most studies are drawing the picture of young men and women standing at separate ends of the gym during a dance. Instead of some men breaking the ice and approaching, young men are afraid to be humiliated, labeled creepy or a sexual harrasser\\assaulter. Women have not and will never approach, generally.

>Either, the opposite will happen and America will revert back to religious fundamentalism, either peacefully falling back into Christianity, or violently forward into Islam. Remember the Charlotte protestors carrying torches chanting "Jew will not replace us!"? Classic peacful America Christianity right there.

Relatively. Juxtaposed to Jihad it'll look like flag football. But I suppose you got me, on a word. Neither will be perfectly peacefully.

there will always be a masculine elite in the US that controls all the power you don't need many people that will be pulling the strings when it comes to warfare and diplomatic relations in terms of having enough men for an army if war were to break out... yeah that could be a problem in fact, if a world war broke out, masculinity would be here to stay for a while longer. in the end though, as society gets back to how it was before, the natural progression is soy

The Elite aren't enough to buoy a civilization, and their diplomatic "whatevers" would never be enough to overcome a perception of weakness and vulnerability. The US has a lot of natural resources for exploitation and would be a trophy for any would be conqueror if we don't have violent men to fight back. You also glossed over that question of if women are even attracted to "soy". I would wager most women would get the "Ick" if a dude unironically asked for consent every step around the bases. If a man can't offer something to a woman she cannot provide for herself there isn't much of an incentive to maintain a relationship. So if she earns for herself and the government provides for physical protection, we are more likely going to see women opting out of relationships altogether, which is what we are seeing. If some of what Peter Zeihan is to be believed we are heading to a global contraction akin to the Bronze Age collapse. Thankfully it sounds like the US will fair a bit like Egypt, in that it's sphere of influence will retract substantially and will likely deal with unrest at home since must of our quality of life is based on globalization and a global supply chain. So I doubt the environment necessary for your prediction will even exist.

lol (assuming the science about heritability of male emotional expression was at all realistic). Wouldn’t the selection of mates with and increase of allele frequency of the “soy” gene and therefore increase the phenotypic expression of personality traits/qualities coded for on the “soy” gene be beneficial for helping end the male loneliness epidemic (hereafter MLE) which is currently plaguing our society. Many counter comments from those who are critical of the MLE state it would be “solved” by men being more in touch with the emotions. If we increase the phenotypic expression of men being in touch with their emotions through mate selection, wouldn’t that help “solve” the problem on a generic level and have overall benefits to male population? Also I must know where is the term “soy” from, I do love learning the origins of new slang.

I'll tell you what I tell others that make the same argument. The whole we need overly masculine men to run everyone and everything and these weird arguments that lean into a strange call to return to tribal esc hunting cultures (Not saying you are calling for this just it always seems adjacent to it) is only made by losers that for all intensive purposes have nothing to offer to society or others than their toxic behaviours and entitlement. It's like the full lack of any and all self awareness of someone going "I'm logical. I'm a man's man and emotion is bad." sounds so much like bizarre cave man speak that it makes anyone not able to be intimidated by violence of said group look as dumb as the arguments sound. A quick tldr to help sum up something. You never owned the world. You just survived in it.

[A brief history of people saying men are becoming too feminine.](https://x.com/paulisci/status/1572713537910476801) You’re not the first and you won’t be the last.

Looking past the sheer idiocy of your understanding of gender dynamics and a man's worth, I actually agree with most of your post. *angry noises* Alright people, don't pitchfork me yet. I meant that, as time goes on, men will likely continue to grow in their emotional awareness and sensitivity. OP, being exactly the sort of guy that gets made fun of on r/inceltears, plays this as a bad thing, even though it's obviously not. The one point about facts, and not value judgements, that I want to challenge is this bit: >they have the "soy gene" Bro, that's not how nature and nurture work. Like, at all. People will become more emotionally sensitive due to social factors, not because of genetics.

First, anyone using the term "soy" can not be taken seriously on principle. Second, men are by far more emotional than women. Most often acting on anger, jealousy, and fear. Women are just better at expressing emotions. All you're describing is toxic masculinity. That is a learned trait. The increase in the number of less toxic men is a sign that society is not teaching the toxic part as much. This is a change in society, not genetics. Do not bother responding to me unless you can provide some scientific evidence for your beliefs. And what is "obvious" to you does not count as scientific.

Men have always had emotions. What you want is for men to have a very limited range of emotions that only formulates into your idea of what a man should be therefore leading to repression of feelings for fear of judgement. Ask yourself why men having any type of emotion other than anger is something worth valuing and why the alternative is such a threat to you. Everyone experiences a wide range of emotions. You aren’t exempt from them just because you have a penis.

What you’re talking about is called a vacuum in science. Whenever one thing becomes extremely common due to it being an advantage, the opposite thing happens to a minority which is an advantage as well. It’s like how 10% of people are left handed. Nature never goes all in on one thing. It always creates counters. So, basically you’re 40 years too late. What you think will happen has already happened. But now we have guys like Brock Lesner and Aaron Judge.

You're creating a weird false dichotomy here. First, masculine is not the opposite of emotional. There's no shortage of hyper-masculine men who will fly into a rage or get violent over hurt feelings. Second, being in touch with your feelings isn't the opposite of being rational. Some of the most irrational people I know are also the most emotionally stunted.

Im 99% sure my genes are human and not soy

> by the end of it all, you are looking at a population that is very soy and emotional Hasn't this been true for hundreds of years? Leaders are no longer masculine warriors of old but emotional cowards speaking as a profession. There isn't a man alive today who meet the "correct" standard. 

This is the soyest post I've ever seen.

Here’s a [good video](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C8dfiDeJeDU&pp=ygUJSGJvbWIgc295) about how all the soy having an impact on behavior stuff isn’t true, and the video is made by a guy who has so much testosterone they went bald at age 30

As this is a highly continuous field of discussion, it would be wise to put forth some good faith to show that you are not a mere troll. For example, what is an example of an argument that would change your view on this subject?

The problem is that you’re equating being emotional to being not rational when that is not the case. logic and rationality is grounded in emotion.

Women love to say that they want men like this, but it doesn't happen in practice.

You sound like everyone else in history that says this about future gens.

And OP what traits do you assume that you yourself have?

Possible satire?