What a pile of vomit-inducing anti-human advertisements and articles in the May, 2022 Men’s edition. It’s full of models in situations alien to the supposed readers. Somehow the WSJ staff is virulently, violently opposed to the demographic most able and most inclined to support The Wall Street Journal. The May, 2022 edition is pure propaganda, designed to… well, .. it’s an infuriating pile of journalistic crap. From the cover on into the magazine, the urge to retch, to emit the contents of one’s stomach, – is the predominant response to the 98% artificial situations depicted supposedly to induce readers to buy the product’s but the product’s do not appeal to men.

Men possess masculine traits. Characteristics designed by nature indigenous to the male of the species Homosapien. Males do not flutter, swish and slide along in life but the individuals depicted inside WSJ Men’s swish and swirl and without being aware of it, most people can accurately identify gay men by face alone. Evolution explains why. The WSJ staff is cognizant of these clear facts, yet they attempt to propagandize the gay lifestyle by using an overabundance of gay men of non-white, non-Caucasian appearance to do what? Who knows. IMO the WSJ is simply lying and being deceptive because they have some kind f anti-agenda.

Scientific American reasons:

Since effeminate gay men utilize similar facial expressions as women, they develop female aging and muscle contraction patterns in their face. For example, gay face includes tightness around the mouth from pursing the lips, a facial expression common to gay men and women—but not to heterosexual men. Also, gay men are more emotionally expressive, leading to a general ‘tightness’ and muscular activation throughout the entire face. Gay face includes an eye expression that is both surprised-looking and predatory. Eyebrows are usually arched higher than that of straight men, and eyebrow hair is manicured. There is often a slightly tan and/or leathery look to the skin, especially among older gay men. Lesbians also have a version of gay face that emulates the facial muscular usage patterns of straight men. They exhibit an underexpression of emotion, relaxed brows, relaxed eyes, and less taut mouth and cheek muscles than straight women. The skin is usually pale and splotchy.”

Again, a tad derogatory—but that doesn’t mean there isn’t some logic there, as well. On the one hand, the “muscular activation hypothesis” seems plausible enough to me. But on the other hand, remember that Rule and his co-authors largely controlled for these superficial giveaways in their stimulus photos. For example, in the second experiment, participants could still ferret out the gay face when shown the eye region sans eyebrows and cropped to the outer canthi. And I’m not entirely sure how to fashion—let alone scientifically operationalize—a “surprised-looking and predatory” eye expression. I think I would get a headache if I attempted that.

In addition, contrary to this urban definition, there may indeed be subtle, yet presently unknown, differences between gay and straight faces. (For example, one of my PhD students, David Harnden-Warwick, has a casual hunch that gay men may have sharper, clearer irises than straight men.) If so, this would add to a growing list of physiological and biological markers of sexual orientation. It was only a few years ago that researchers discovered that, unlike straight men, gay men tend to have hair whorl patterns that run in a counterclockwise direction. Such differences may evade conscious detection while registering at some level in people’s social awareness.

All we know at the moment is that there’s something endemic to our faces (in particular, our eyes and mouths) that betrays our “hidden” sexual orientation.

Compared the height, weight, obesity, muscularity linearity, biacromial-bi-iliac ratio, and muscle strength of 44 homosexual and 111 heterosexual men. Homosexuals had less subcutaneous fat and smaller muscle/bone development and were longer in proportion to bulk. Their shoulders were narrower in relation to pelvic width, and their muscle strength was less. Linearity and muscularity were related to childhood build and certain behaviors. Urinary metabolites and blood serum lipids were compared for smaller groups (27-28 homosexuals, 109-111 heterosexuals). The homosexuals had lower creatinine and 17-ketogenic steroid levels, lower androsterone-etiocholanolone ratio, and higher 11-keto-etiocholanolone. They also had lower triglycerides, phospholipids, cholesterol, and beta-lipoproteins. It is concluded that the data support the thesis of an unidentified common factor underlying physical and personality characteristics and homosexuality.

This is feminization for the sake of making men into non-men.  Masculinized industries encompass many work contexts described as masculine, male-dominated, and/or gendered. However, the use of any of those three latter designations hinges on the gender binary (men and women) and the inequitable distribution of power in favor of men. Feminized industries are the binary identification on the non-male but the WSJ knowing that, choses to ignore the binary genders and depicts God only knows what gender defying people in it’s May 2022 issue. There are no photographs of police, NFL players, people in management and blue-collar, male-dominated occupations such as building and grounds cleaning and maintenance; construction and extraction; and production. WSJ in 98% actively engaged in propaganda against white heterosexuality.

Views: 4