Physically Stronger Men More Likely To Have Right Wing Political Views?

Avatar image for deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74
deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74

8695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

"Men who are strong are more likely to take a right-wing stance, while weaker men support the welfare state, researchers claim.

Their study discovered a link between a man’s upper-body strength and their political views.

Scientists from Aarhus University in Denmark collected data on bicep size, socio-economic status and support for economic redistribution from hundreds in America, Argentina and Denmark.

The figures revealed that men with higher upper-body strength were less likely to support left-wing policies on the redistribution of wealth.

But men with low upper-body strength were more likely to put their own self-interest aside and support a welfare state.

The researchers found no link between upper-body strength and redistribution opinions among women.

Professor Michael Petersen said: ‘In all three countries, physically strong males consistently pursued the self-interested position on redistribution.

‘However physically weak males were more reluctant to assert their self-interest – just as if disputes over national policies were a matter of direct physical confrontation between individuals.

‘While many people think of politics as a modern phenomenon, it has, in a sense, always been with our species.

‘Political views are designed by natural selection to function in the conditions recurrent over human evolutionary history.’

The findings were published in the journal Psychological Science.

Professor Petersen added: ‘Many previous studies have shown that people's political views cannot be predicted by standard economic models.

‘This is among the first studies to show that political views may be rational in another sense, in that they're designed by natural selection to function in the conditions recurrent over human evolutionary history.’"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2325414/Men-physically-strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html

TL;DR: Weaker men more likely to support welfare state and wealth redistribution. Link may reflect psychological traits that evolved in our ancestors. Strength was a proxy for ability to defend or acquire resources. There is no link between women's physical strength and political views.

I thought this was interesting. What do you think?

Avatar image for bigblackclock
BIGBLACKCLOCK

9

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Is there one for member size too?

Avatar image for avatar_of_green
Avatar_of_Green

3214

Forum Posts

241

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By Avatar_of_Green

@silkyballfro94: always bullshit. Where is the tipping point? How much more likely?

Avatar image for deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74
deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74

8695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@avatar_of_green: Always bullshit....what? Tipping point to what? I don't know how much more likely, this is what the article had and I thought I'd share.

Avatar image for avatar_of_green
Avatar_of_Green

3214

Forum Posts

241

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@silkyballfro94: not you. Science articles. The tipping point for becoming more manly is what weight exactly?

Avatar image for naamah_obyzouth
Naamah_Obyzouth

7471

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

This makes perfect sense to me. I'm a female, I'm a lesbian, and I am very right wing in a lot of ways. Try to fit me into one of your tidy neat boxes, you might find it difficult.

Avatar image for danhimself
danhimself

21433

Forum Posts

36958

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

so if I start working out then I'll suddenly find myself leaning to the Right?

Avatar image for naamah_obyzouth
Naamah_Obyzouth

7471

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

Co dependent vs Independent, is more like it.

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
deactivated-097092725

10555

Forum Posts

1043

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

This makes perfect sense to me. I'm a female, I'm a lesbian, and I am very right wing in a lot of ways. Try to fit me into one of your tidy neat boxes, you might find it difficult.

Oh, I've missed you.

Avatar image for spambot
Spambot

9727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By Spambot

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this was the case. Most males who work out a lot also tend to also have more right leaning political views imo. I think political rightness is ascribed to being more masculine so the two kind of naturally go hand in hand.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74
deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74

8695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@danhimself: It's probably not as simple as that. I think it might be deeper.

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
deactivated-097092725

10555

Forum Posts

1043

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

In my experience, I'd say hell to the no.

Avatar image for noone301994
Noone301994

22169

Forum Posts

25

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Makes sense.

Avatar image for batwatch
BatWatch

5487

Forum Posts

274

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 238

User Lists: 1

It's hard to build muscle while sitting on the couch waiting for your next unemployment check to arrive.

Avatar image for dernman
dernman

35969

Forum Posts

10092

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

Not saying I buy into the article because I never hold any study as fact but the posters in this thread is another instance where I've noticed something.

People love to use articles and studies as proof but once it doesn't align with something they believe in they mock and dismiss it.

Avatar image for avatar_of_green
Avatar_of_Green

3214

Forum Posts

241

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@batwatch: Unemployment means you had a full time job and were let go for something that wasn't your fault. Hardly the people who are "leftist" that you think you are insulting. What a misinformed comment. I know you think you were just being funny. Maybe use welfare next time, I'm sure you like making fun of disabled families too ;)

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7648

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@dernman said:

Not saying I buy into the article because I never hold any study as fact but the posters in this thread is another instance where I've noticed something.

People love to use articles and studies as proof but once it doesn't align with something they believe in they mock and dismiss it.

I agree. So, I guess this is implying that white men in corporate offices are generally stronger than African American men who tend to be physically active in task that require lots of strength. Fail. Flawed study; just how the data was manipulated. We bring articles from scientists who happen to be Christian, but, few people read them, but are quick to think they're making a point by stating that no evidence supports Christianity.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for jonny_anonymous
Jonny_Anonymous

45773

Forum Posts

11109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 32

You probably shouldn't pay attention to any science\political articles you read in the Daily Mail.

Avatar image for silverpool
SilverPool

4562

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

So now I can make fun of my left wing friends and call them beta males?

Avatar image for dernman
dernman

35969

Forum Posts

10092

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

So now I can make fun of my left wing friends and call them beta males?

You mean you haven't already been doing that?

Avatar image for cattlebattle
cattlebattle

20959

Forum Posts

313

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yes. Liberals are on average weak, girly men.

Avatar image for antithetical
antithetical

1792

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

More junk science trying to pose as the real deal, should be a dead giveaway with the article using such a loaded term as "welfare state" in referring to those with left leaning viewpoints.

Avatar image for timelordscience
TimeLordScience

1940

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

LOL the Daily Mail.

Avatar image for batwatch
BatWatch

5487

Forum Posts

274

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 238

User Lists: 1

#26  Edited By BatWatch

@avatar_of_green:

"Unemployment means you had a full time job and were let go for something that wasn't your fault."

1. You don't necessarily have to have had a full-time job to draw unemployment. Rules differ from state to state.

"Hardly the people who are "leftist" that you think you are insulting."

2. I simply made a comment about muscle building and the unemployed. You are the one who automatically assumed unemployed meant leftist.

"What a misinformed comment."

You're the one batting 0 for 2 in a single comment.

"I know you think you were just being funny."

True, so why are you doing attempting a nonsensical fact check on a joke? Newsflash, no scientific study has ever proven that chickens cross the road to get to the other side and you're mom probably isn't so fat that she has her own moons.

"Maybe use welfare next time,"

I felt unemployment had more of a a zing factor, but I considered using the generic term welfare, EBT cards or Obama phones, but the joke just seemed clunkier with the latter options.

"I'm sure you like making fun of disabled families too ;)"

If the joke is funny, then sure. Why not? Most humor is at someone's expense. The well adjusted individual knows how to laugh at himself and the maladjusted don't benefit from coddling.

Now that I'm done making a nitpicking comment about your nitpicking comment, let me be serious for a second.

A lot of people do lose their jobs through no fault of their own, but McDonalds is always hiring. Unless someone has a severe physical or mental handicap, I don't buy the idea that they can't find a job.

Avatar image for batwatch
BatWatch

5487

Forum Posts

274

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 238

User Lists: 1

#27  Edited By BatWatch

@dshipp17 said:
@dernman said:

Not saying I buy into the article because I never hold any study as fact but the posters in this thread is another instance where I've noticed something.

People love to use articles and studies as proof but once it doesn't align with something they believe in they mock and dismiss it.

I agree. So, I guess this is implying that white men in corporate offices are generally stronger than African American men who tend to be physically active in task that require lots of strength. Fail. Flawed study; just how the data was manipulated. We bring articles from scientists who happen to be Christian, but, few people read them, but are quick to think they're making a point by stating that no evidence supports Christianity.

Loading Video...

First up, lots of white men in corporate offices support the left. It's infinitely better for mega corporations to have tons of laws passed by Progressives that stifle potential new businesses with red tape than to have a free market economy where the corporations will have to compete against new economic rivals.

Second, rejecting the study because it comes to a conclusion you don't like is exactly as silly and illogical as accepting a study because it comes to a conclusion that you do like. I don't have any idea if this study is legitimate, and unless somebody is willing to pore over the methodology or at least the conductors of the study, it's pretty silly to dismiss or endorse it.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74
deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74

8695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dernman: You have a point there. Everyone in this thread is either laughing and brushing off the article OR embracing the article. Basically they're just taking sides. I was sorta hoping some people would think a bit deeper and maybe see if this info in the article can or cannot be relatable in their experiences. Or think about all the possibilities and inferences once could come up with and offer a detailed opinion. I see many opinions many people could come up with if they just thought a little harder, than the basic emotional I'M TAKING A SIDE mentality. But oh well.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74
deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74

8695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

If you guys didn't like the dailymail article, then here's the article from the university website. And a couple other links.

http://bss.au.dk/currently/news/news-item/artikel/size-of-biceps-influences-mens-political-attitudes/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10061462/Stronger-men-are-more-right-wing.html

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/political-motivations-may-have-evolutionary-links-to-physical-strength.html

Avatar image for cgoodness
Cream_God

15519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Im pretty sure 9/10 a redneck would beat up a hippy yes

Avatar image for avatar_of_green
Avatar_of_Green

3214

Forum Posts

241

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Im pretty sure 9/10 a redneck would beat up a hippy yes

Nowadays most "hippies" I know tend to work out and take care of themselves and rednecks tend to drink PBR and smoke a shit-ton... so IDK about that one lol

Avatar image for cgoodness
Cream_God

15519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

@cgoodness said:

Im pretty sure 9/10 a redneck would beat up a hippy yes

Nowadays most "hippies" I know tend to work out and take care of themselves and rednecks tend to drink PBR and smoke a shit-ton... so IDK about that one lol

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7648

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#33  Edited By dshipp17

@batwatch said:

@avatar_of_green:

"Unemployment means you had a full time job and were let go for something that wasn't your fault."

1. You don't necessarily have to have had a full-time job to draw unemployment. Rules differ from state to state.

"Hardly the people who are "leftist" that you think you are insulting."

2. I simply made a comment about muscle building and the unemployed. You are the one who automatically assumed unemployed meant leftist.

"What a misinformed comment."

You're the one batting 0 for 2 in a single comment.

"I know you think you were just being funny."

True, so why are you doing attempting a nonsensical fact check on a joke? Newsflash, no scientific study has ever proven that chickens cross the road to get to the other side and you're mom probably isn't so fat that she has her own moons.

"Maybe use welfare next time,"

I felt unemployment had more of a a zing factor, but I considered using the generic term welfare, EBT cards or Obama phones, but the joke just seemed clunkier with the latter options.

"I'm sure you like making fun of disabled families too ;)"

If the joke is funny, then sure. Why not? Most humor is at someone's expense. The well adjusted individual knows how to laugh at himself and the maladjusted don't benefit from coddling.

Now that I'm done making a nitpicking comment about your nitpicking comment, let me be serious for a second.

A lot of people do lose their jobs through no fault of their own, but McDonalds is always hiring. Unless someone has a severe physical or mental handicap, I don't buy the idea that they can't find a job.

I'm not sure you actually know the requirements for drawing unemployment benefits. The core requirements for drawing unemployment benefits are the same for every state; but, some states may actually make it tougher to get unemployment benefits than others. The core requirements for getting unemployment benefits is that you should have had a job for a set period of time. Why do you think Congress had to pass laws to have unemployment benefit extended during the 2008-2009 recession? First, why is the label "unemployment" being used, if you could get them anywhere, without having previously had a job immediately preceding the benefits? Why was Congress extending the benefits? Gosh, you clearly can't know what you're talking about; and, not only that, you apparently wont even listen to the people who are beneficiaries of the benefits; you seem to think Republicans understand them better than the beneficiaries or, you're selectively having a hard time separating Republican rhetoric from reality; and, although Democrats try to benefit politically, clearly, what they're saying about it is not rhetoric. I lived through that crisis and I even had the benefit of trying to get benefits in two different states, Washington and Alabama; but, during the extension, Washington had to send my benefits to me in Alabama, due to restrictions in Alabama (e.g. after laws were passed to extend unemployment benefits); and, I was one of the 99ers who the Republicans made sure could not get further benefits, but, I wasn't surprised; and, Congressional Democrats paid a price in the 2010 election that they're still paying for in the present. Although I think even further extensions would have long expired by the time of the present, the Lord works for the good in mysterious ways, as I got extensions in the nick of time, as, I didn't conceive of having no income this long, when I transferred from Washington in April 2008.

And no, a McDonalds is not always hiring, or, some equivalent employer. It's hard to say why some people stay unemployed for so long, but, it isn't to sit around and collect unemployment benefits which have a very finite period of time; other than unemployment benefits, besides food stamps, I know of no other way to get income from the government, as, welfare is a mythical talking point that comes to the minds of Republicans and their supporters, when arguing against the government intervening to help the poor or disadvantaged; there are two types of disability benefits to draw from, one worth a couple of thousand per month and one worth about $550 per month; most who get disability get the $550 per month and that's not enough to live independent, on your own; the people who may get the couple of thousand a month either have a terminal illness, is wheelchair bound, severely disabled mentally, or, a disabled veteran, so, no one is freeloading off government through disability benefits; and food stamps is like $200 per month in the best of cases, but, that can only be used on food. If someone were collecting unemployment benefits in place of finding a job, they can only do it for 6 months; and the rule goes, the longer you're unemployed the harder it is to get employment; so, that works against you; everyone wants to get their next job in a month or less; you than panic the longer you can't find a job; most people get desperate and some, such as myself, get creative; someone unemployed for 99 weeks or more might find it insurmountable to get a new job, due to being unemployed for so long.

More accurately, it's difficult to say why some white people stay unemployed for so long, but, in the case of African Americans and other minorities, more likely than not, it's because of institutionalized racism built into the job application process, most heavily, and than on the job racial discrimination that makes a discharged African American or minority seem undesirable. In my case, I have two issues in common that might be affecting both unemployed minorities and whites: institutionalized racism (e.g. likely the case for a minority) and blacklisting (e.g. likely the case for a white), plus a third and forth issue: perceived disability due to my speech and probably looks (e.g. an unaddressed issue affecting everyone/race); when I was hired to the federal government, I got in because of an over the phone interview, but, I had other job offers within the federal government based just on my application material; in the case of private sector employers, they all insist on an in person interview and, apparently, since I was last hired, the government now requires an in person interview plus something more akin to a traditional resume required by private employers; while I've been unemployed and receiving my unemployment benefits, I actually had a private employer insist on me having a webcam before he would proceed with the interview, where we were talking over the phone; now, why would that be the case? This doesn't just apply to getting a job at Boeing, Microsoft, Dow Chemical, etc, it even applies to getting a job at Walmart, McDonalds, Burger King, etc, where the latter categories are actually more likely to demand an in person interview, even though I no of no cases where the former does not require an in person interview. Based on my known background for when I was hired into the federal government, I know something is very suspicious, when I don't hear back from someone after an in person interview and an open ended letter of denial; if it were something I said during the interview, based on seeing discrimination suites before the EEOC and courts, I know a prospective employer can get very specific concerning something that prevented you from being gaining employment; and, I'm in a pending suite (e.g. against my former employer) for denying me employment, despite superior credentials; after the whole process, based on the maneuvering and flip flopping by my opponent, I know without a shadow of doubt that my lack of credentials wasn't the reason for my denial of employment; as a matter of fact, while the case was pending at the EEOC, not recognizing me, they rated me 96 and 100 on two applications, but, didn't follow required protocol for denying my application; there was unlikely an applicant to have a rating over 96 and a nearly non-existent chance for an applicant to have a rating over 100 (e.g. only a military veteran can get a rating higher than 100, due to extra points, where they have to be a 5 point veteran, 10 point veteran, or 25 point veteran, most likely due to a service related disability, but, that military veteran would still have to rate as high as me in the first instance; for a science job, this is the case, but, for other types of jobs, the veteran could rate lower than me, but, get rated higher (e.g. could receive a 76 rating but get a 101 rating to beat me)); and, of course, those are pending in my EEOC case; thus, using the more objective evaluation of an applicant by the government, I can know that institutionalized racism is a live and well in the private sector, if I never hear back or receive an open ended, vague denial of my application; I could definitely apply to Dow Chemical on Monday and end up filing a suite, but, my suites are still pending; otherwise, I'd risk becoming a vexatious court filer; without some objective criteria for the evaluation of my application, a private sector employer can make up an infinite number of after the fact justifications, based solely on how I'm required to word my EEOC complaint, by not giving specifics for the reasons for denying my job applications; with a white, however, they can give specifics, as they do not have to fear an EEOC suite . So, everything I say comes from firsthand experience which can allow me the benefit of making an educated speculation; thus, the answer is further government intervention not less.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74
deactivated-5e3b7f04aeb74

8695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Holy wall of text. Everyone run!!

Avatar image for pipxeroth
pipxeroth

10000

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@sophia89 said:
@batwatch said:

It's hard to build muscle while sitting on the couch waiting for your next unemployment check to arrive.

No Caption Provided

LMAO

Avatar image for batwatch
BatWatch

5487

Forum Posts

274

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 238

User Lists: 1

#36  Edited By BatWatch

@dshipp17:

"I'm not sure you actually know the requirements for drawing unemployment benefits. The core requirements for drawing unemployment benefits are the same for every state; but, some states may actually make it tougher to get unemployment benefits than others. The core requirements for getting unemployment benefits is that you should have had a job for a set period of time. Why do you think Congress had to pass laws to have unemployment benefit extended during the 2008-2009 recession? First, why is the label "unemployment" being used, if you could get them anywhere, without having previously had a job immediately preceding the benefits? Why was Congress extending the benefits?"

So you are telling me people have to have had a job and have lost it before drawing unemployment? Well, no duh.

You said to draw unemployment, you had to have had a full-time job and lose it through no fault of your own. I pointed out that you did not in fact have to have had a full-time job to draw unemployment. If I realized you were going to write me an eighty-three paragraph diatribe when you misunderstood my response, I would have written my comment like this.

"You don't necessarily have to have had a

full-time

No Caption Provided

job to draw unemployment. Rules differ from state to state."

"Gosh, you clearly can't know what you're talking about; and, not only that, you apparently wont even listen to the people who are beneficiaries of the benefits; you seem to think Republicans understand them better than the beneficiaries or, you're selectively having a hard time separating Republican rhetoric from reality; and, although Democrats try to benefit politically, clearly, what they're saying about it is not rhetoric."

I said nothing about Republicans or Democrats. The accusation that I don't listen to people who take welfare benefits is based on nothing.

"I lived through that crisis and I even had the benefit of trying to get benefits in two different states, Washington and Alabama; but, during the extension, Washington had to send my benefits to me in Alabama, due to restrictions in Alabama (e.g. after laws were passed to extend unemployment benefits);"

From what I can tell, Alabama normally provides unemployment benefits for twenty-six weeks. Are you telling me that you spent a half a year putting in applications at fast food restaurants and didn't get a single job offer?

"and, I was one of the 99ers who the Republicans made sure could not get further benefits, but, I wasn't surprised;"

You just said you did get benefits, but now you didn't? Did you or didn't you?

"and, Congressional Democrats paid a price in the 2010 election that they're still paying for in the present"

You're suggesting that extending unemployment benefits is what lead to the 2010 Republican wave election rather than Obamacare, the trillion dollar stimulus package, or Cash for Clunkers and that extending unemployment is still the prime motivating factor in national elections? I don't think so.

"Although I think even further extensions would have long expired by the time of the present, the Lord works for the good in mysterious ways, as I got extensions in the nick of time, as, I didn't conceive of having no income this long, when I transferred from Washington in April 2008."

No income this long? This long? "This" which suggests your lack of an earned income is something still present rather than "that" which implies something that is now distant from you? Are you telling me that you haven't had a job since 2008?

"And no, a McDonalds is not always hiring, or, some equivalent employer."

Yes, they are. I worked there for three years, and their employee pool is a revolving door.

"It's hard to say why some people stay unemployed for so long, but, it isn't to sit around and collect unemployment benefits which have a very finite period of time;"

Unemployment is admittedly a complicated issue. It's a little counterproductive to try to encapsulate those complexities in a one line joke, but it's even more counterproductive to try to fact-check a one-line joke with a an eighty-three paragraph response.

"other than unemployment benefits, besides food stamps, I know of no other way to get income from the government, as, welfare is a mythical talking point that comes to the minds of Republicans and their supporters, when arguing against the government intervening to help the poor or disadvantaged;"

Well, Here are thirteen broad federal programs that provide welfare benefits. There are probably more federal programs and there are certainly more state and local level programs. I'm not sure how all these programs are dismissed as mythical, but I'm sure you can enlighten me, the dumb guy who thinks these programs you've been describing actually exist.

"there are two types of disability benefits to draw from, one worth a couple of thousand per month and one worth about $550 per month; most who get disability get the $550 per month and that's not enough to live independent, on your own; the people who may get the couple of thousand a month either have a terminal illness, is wheelchair bound, severely disabled mentally, or, a disabled veteran, so, no one is freeloading off government through disability benefits;"

Lots of issues with this section.

1. The topic has changed from unemployment and general welfare programs to disability all of a sudden as if this welfare stream is the only one available to people.

2. The maximum you can get off disability payment is $2,663 tax free, and you say this isn't freeloading, yet as a guy with a Bachelor's degree and seven years of working full-time, I've never made that much money after taxes (excluding weeks with overtime) and I'm living pretty well. Getting that money for free would be totally awesome.

3. Even if you're only getting $550 a month, that's still money you haven't earned, and it'd be very nice to have.

"and food stamps is like $200 per month in the best of cases, but, that can only be used on food."

It can be roughly $200 dollars per person added to whatever other welfare benefits you're already getting.

"If someone were collecting unemployment benefits in place of finding a job, they can only do it for 6 months; and the rule goes, the longer you're unemployed the harder it is to get employment; so, that works against you; everyone wants to get their next job in a month or less; you than panic the longer you can't find a job; most people get desperate and some, such as myself, get creative; someone unemployed for 99 weeks or more might find it insurmountable to get a new job, due to being unemployed for so long."

Uh, no. It may be true that the longer you are unemployed the harder it is to find a job, but it's certainly not true that you can't find a job. Lots of women drop out of the work force for years or even decades to raise their kids and then join back without any difficulty. I know a couple women who had no education beyond a high school diploma who did this and found jobs during the height of unemployment following the 2008 financial collapse. There are jobs. Many people are just too lazy or too prideful to take them.

"More accurately, it's difficult to say why some white people stay unemployed for so long, but, in the case of African Americans and other minorities, more likely than not, it's because of institutionalized racism built into the job application process, most heavily, and than on the job racial discrimination that makes a discharged African American or minority seem undesirable. In my case, I have two issues in common that might be affecting both unemployed minorities and whites: institutionalized racism (e.g. likely the case for a minority) and blacklisting (e.g. likely the case for a white), plus a third and forth issue: perceived disability due to my speech and probably looks (e.g. an unaddressed issue affecting everyone/race); when I was hired to the federal government, I got in because of an over the phone interview, but, I had other job offers within the federal government based just on my application material; in the case of private sector employers, they all insist on an in person interview and, apparently, since I was last hired, the government now requires an in person interview plus something more akin to a traditional resume required by private employers; while I've been unemployed and receiving my unemployment benefits,"

There are definitely studies that suggest there is racial bias in hiring practices. I have no problem saying black people most likely have a harder time getting hired. However, there's a world of difference between saying someone has a harder time finding a job and saying someone can't find a job. In a country where a black man is elected President, glass ceiling arguments hold no weight, and even when Jim Crow was in full force and generally accepted as a good thing, black people still found work, so I don't buy any arguments that say, "I can't find a job because I'm black."

"I actually had a private employer insist on me having a webcam before he would proceed with the interview, where we were talking over the phone; now, why would that be the case?"

I've never been interviewed for a job without the employer wanting a face to face. If you can't be there in person, then a webcam is the next best thing.

"This doesn't just apply to getting a job at Boeing, Microsoft, Dow Chemical, etc, it even applies to getting a job at Walmart, McDonalds, Burger King, etc, where the latter categories are actually more likely to demand an in person interview, even though I no of no cases where the former does not require an in person interview. Based on my known background for when I was hired into the federal government, I know something is very suspicious, when I don't hear back from someone after an in person interview and an open ended letter of denial; if it were something I said during the interview, based on seeing discrimination suites before the EEOC and courts, I know a prospective employer can get very specific concerning something that prevented you from being gaining employment; and, I'm in a pending suite (e.g. against my former employer) for denying me employment, despite superior credentials; after the whole process, based on the maneuvering and flip flopping by my opponent, I know without a shadow of doubt that my lack of credentials wasn't the reason for my denial of employment; as a matter of fact, while the case was pending at the EEOC, not recognizing me, they rated me 96 and 100 on two applications, but, didn't follow required protocol for denying my application; there was unlikely an applicant to have a rating over 96 and a nearly non-existent chance for an applicant to have a rating over 100 (e.g. only a military veteran can get a rating higher than 100, due to extra points, where they have to be a 5 point veteran, 10 point veteran, or 25 point veteran, most likely due to a service related disability, but, that military veteran would still have to rate as high as me in the first instance; for a science job, this is the case, but, for other types of jobs, the veteran could rate lower than me, but, get rated higher (e.g. could receive a 76 rating but get a 101 rating to beat me)); and, of course, those are pending in my EEOC case; thus, using the more objective evaluation of an applicant by the government, I can know that institutionalized racism is a live and well in the private sector, if I never hear back or receive an open ended, vague denial of my application; I could definitely apply to Dow Chemical on Monday and end up filing a suite, but, my suites are still pending; otherwise, I'd risk becoming a vexatious court filer; without some objective criteria for the evaluation of my application, a private sector employer can make up an infinite number of after the fact justifications, based solely on how I'm required to word my EEOC complaint, by not giving specifics for the reasons for denying my job applications; with a white, however, they can give specifics, as they do not have to fear an EEOC suite ."

I don't know the facts on your situation, so there's not much to say on this. All I have is your half of the story, and honestly, even your half doesn't sound that convincing. You say you were turned down for a job and didn't receive a specific explanation for why you didn't receive the job. Well, I've never received a specific reason for being turned down for a job either, so does that mean the white man's out to get me as well? You say your resume is better than the other guys, but I'm not sure how you could judge that since you are obviously biased towards yourself (who isn't?) or how you could even know what the other guy's resume was. I'm not sure what the rubric for grading your application is. I've never even heard of such a thing actually, but I suppose one could be invented, but even if your application was better, that doesn't mean you were turned down because of racism. Hell, I had great grades in college and received several marks of excellence, yet I've never yet received great success probably in part because I am awkward in interpersonal relations, and I'm sure that dinged me badly in the interviews I've had. That sort of thing can't be quantified on a rubric, and even if you are fantastically personable, there are many other factors which can't be quantified on a resume or application which easily could have lead to you being refused a job. My boss is currently looking for a new employee, and he heavily considers personality types and considers who he thinks will mesh well with his current team. You can't quantify gut.

"So, everything I say comes from firsthand experience which can allow me the benefit of making an educated speculation; thus, the answer is further government intervention not less"

You're story is actually a great example of why government intervention in the free market doesn't work. There are already laws saying you can't discriminate, and yet discrimination already occurs. What do you want the government to do? Pass another law that says it's super duper illegal to discriminate? Yeah, that'll work. The fact is that anybody with racist intentions can simply refuse to hire a race they dislike and lie about their intentions.

I suppose you could pass a law making it where someone must be hired based strictly on their resume, but that makes it a contest of who can build the best resume not a contest of who is best for the job. Someone might have a stellar set of qualifications, but if they have extremely bad halitosis (just for a wacky example), they might not be the best sales rep.

You could create racial quota systems, but this would make it where people were hired for the color of their skin rather than their skill in the trade. I don't think basketball would improve as a sport if we forced the NBA to hire players along a racial quota lines. In fact, I'm pretty sure quality of the final product, sports entertainment, would decline significantly, and I'm sure the exact same thing would happen if the same racial quota policy were implemented for every other industry.

And of course, any government intervention requires bureaucratic cogs which serve little purpose other than to gum up the works. Pencil pushers who add nothing of value to society would be constantly leeching off the dollars of useful people just to ensure that the letter of the law was being followed even though we know the letter of the law would do nothing to actually combat racism.

And lawsuits would be even more omnipresent than they currently are. If you have been mistreated, then I hope justice is done for you, and maybe you have a really solid case for your discrimination suit which I haven't seen, but from the information you've shared, it sounds like you didn't get a job, assumed racism must be the cause and filed a lawsuit for a hopefully big payday. That may help you and other people who can win a few suits, but it'll hurt everybody else who is having to pay the higher taxes and higher prices that will go to fund those types of court costs.

Avatar image for deactivated-5da1bf32237f0
deactivated-5da1bf32237f0

4553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

@batwatch said:

It's hard to build muscle while sitting on the couch waiting for your next unemployment check to arrive.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7648

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#38  Edited By dshipp17

@batwatch:

“So you are telling me people have to have had a job and have lost it before drawing unemployment? Well, no duh.

You said to draw unemployment, you had to have had a full-time job and lose it through no fault of your own. I pointed out that you did not in fact have to have had a full-time job to draw unemployment. If I realized you were going to write me an eighty-three paragraph diatribe when you misunderstood my response, I would have written my comment like this.”

Neither I or you specified full time or part time employment. Getting unemployment benefits is strictly based on having previously worked; if there are states that will not provide unemployment benefits to former part time workers, that sounds like a restriction; I never thought of that; I’m assuming full time employment because I was a full time worker. And, I didn’t have unemployment benefits mapped out in my career goals, it was something learned on the spot and the financial crisis actually made me study it further. So, you’re implying part time work wasn’t actually work, based on your prior post?

“I said nothing about Republicans or Democrats. The accusation that I don't listen to people who take welfare benefits is based on nothing.”

Well, only Republicans and right wingers make similar comments, so, it can be logically assumed that you were taking a right wing and Republican position.

“From what I can tell, Alabama normally provides unemployment benefits for twenty-six weeks. Are you telling me that you spent a half a year putting in applications at fast food restaurants and didn't get a single job offer?”

Yes, and you’d understand my point better, if you digested my post as a whole instead of in a piecemeal fashion. I actually said my unemployment benefits were still coming from the state of Washington, after I had to move to Alabama, due to greater restrictions in Alabama. Fortunately, both Washington and Alabama have a twenty-six week limit on unemployment benefits, so, I believe it’s probably a core requirement. Yes, I spent a half year putting in applications at fast food restaurants, other similar employers, and employers in my own professional field and received no work. You’re naive or insensitive enough to assume that race, blacklisting, and looks cannot be playing a factor, while I’m astute enough to assume that race, blacklisting, and looks are playing a factor in my extended unemployment. Back when I first started looking for work, right out of college, it took 4 months of searching; than, it was only race and looks, but, now, blacklisting is an added factor. Sure, it’s unusual to you as a white American to have been applying for jobs for 6 months, but, that’s quite standard for African Americans; that’s why the point is that you can’t truly understand our struggle and why we make the points we make over and over again. I’ve actually spent around 470 weeks without a job now, to be more precise. What is prolonging matters is that I’ve also had an unusually long litigation period against my former employer, so, it’s a litigation advantage for them that I’m not employed; but, you have to have a certain level of astuteness to perceive such strategies from the eyes of an opponent. If you make those assumptions you’ve made so far, you’d get creamed immediately in litigation and quite soon in the process; you might not even have sense enough to pursue a very winnable appeal either. But, I don’t think you’re actually that naive, you’re just right winged, trying to convince me that there’s nothing to our struggle except a drive to succeed.

“You just said you did get benefits, but now you didn't? Did you or didn't you?”

Yes, in context; I got extensions, but, no further extensions were given for the 99ers.

“You're suggesting that extending unemployment benefits is what lead to the 2010 Republican wave election rather than Obamacare, the trillion dollar stimulus package, or Cash for Clunkers and that extending unemployment is still the prime motivating factor in national elections? I don't think so.”

You actually think the majority of Americans are against the Affordable Care Act, were against Cash for Clunkers, and were against extending unemployment benefits? No one outside a right wing perspective could actually seriously believe that; I think some of the decisions immediately preceding that election, like refusing to extend benefits for the 99ers, likely cause voters to sit out the election, as we’re talking about the same voters who gave Obama the blowout victory over McCain; let me burst your bubble: they certainly didn’t respond by voting Republican; otherwise, if the voters thought that way, McCain would have been elected; you seriously believe that there’s some mass Reagan Democrats still left to give Republicans the White House? Generally, a midterm election brings out right wingers. You think minority voters were outraged by those items, well, except the trillions to big banks and big business, instead of sending (them) the poor and disadvantaged a check for $100,000?

“No income this long? This long? "This" which suggests your lack of an earned income is something still present rather than "that" which implies something that is now distant from you? Are you telling me that you haven't had a job since 2008?”

My lack of income from full time employment is still present. Actually, try November 2006. Why? I’m still in litigation with my former employer and I correctly assume that race, blacklisting, and looks are playing a factor in my extended unemployment; race is especially a factor somewhere like Alabama. I have had alternative forms of income during this period or I wouldn’t be able to be posting here; like I said, I got creative instead of desperate.

“Yes, they are. I worked there for three years, and their employee pool is a revolving door.”

So, you actually believe that an employer who once denied your application would not continue to deny your application? Would you repeatedly apply somewhere that rejected your job application? You would evolve your frame of thinking and start considering that something might be different in your case from other applicants, of a sinister nature? You actually think writing a better resume is going to get you a job someplace that previously denied your application for employment? You clearly don’t seem like someone who can relate to being without a job.

“Unemployment is admittedly a complicated issue. It's a little counterproductive to try to encapsulate those complexities in a one line joke, but it's even more counterproductive to try to fact-check a one-line joke with a an eighty-three paragraph response.”

Unemployment is not so complicated though, because you can narrow most cases down to race, blacklisting, and/or looks. Of course, there could be a lack of qualifications, but, most people know not to try applying to a job they’re clearly unqualified to fill; because we can assume that, wouldn’t it be logical to assume that government should intervene to eliminate some of the artificial obstacles put in place to not hire someone?

“Well, Here are thirteen broad federal programs that provide welfare benefits. There are probably more federal programs and there are certainly more state and local level programs. I'm not sure how all these programs are dismissed as mythical, but I'm sure you can enlighten me, the dumb guy who thinks these programs you've been describing actually exist.”

1. In this example, how is helping a low income person considered welfare? Key words here “low income”, meaning employed. 2. Yes, I already mentioned food stamps. 3. How is housing assistance considered welfare? You’re saying someone would avoid work to get housing assistance; from personal experience, I know rental assistance is a sham; that program needs serious reform; they mostly make excuses to use that money to provide housing assistance is no longer available; they use it to increase their salaries; when I was in Washington, every time I called, I was somehow a person too late; if a person needed such to avoid an eviction, they’ll be just jumping off a cliff; so, you think someone will avoid working longer hours or a higher paying job in anticipation of these monthly vouchers? Sorry, this is not welfare in the sense people would think of welfare or an entitlement. But, the right wing solution is to have nothing there at all? Well, contrary to what the Republican intended purpose is usually aimed to address, this will eliminate a form of managerial corruption; it would just remove a form of salary for the people overseeing these programs, usually not the aim of a Republican judge; they usually want to see fault in the employee, leading to unjust results. But, you can’t need housing assistance with no income to afford housing, hence, not welfare; or, maybe Republicans are trying to expand the definition of welfare, from what I’m reading; why not cut some tax credit for some multimillion dollar business instead of trying to eliminate something like this? Republicans never have an answer to this question. 4. Yeah, I mentioned disability, but, that can’t really be labeled as welfare, as these people cannot work or can only work in a limited capacity; seems a logical, caring endeavor for your fellow human being that almost anyone would extend to the citizens, or, you’re saying this is better utilized as a tax credit to some multimillion dollar company who’s keeping people out of work for whatever reason? 5. The Pell Grant is not welfare; you use the Pell Grant to get a higher education, not to sit and relax on a sofa. 6. TANF is not welfare in the sense that only a family would have access to it, and, notice the T for temporary. 7. Child nutrition, same as 6, not really considered welfare. 8. Same as 6 and 7. 9. Job training would not be considered welfare; and, there’s no actual money from these programs that goes to anyone; in Washington and Alabama, all this money is used for is to provide a salary for state employees; the extent of their help for adults is providing you with a list of available jobs; this program needs major reform, but, right now, it’s hardly welfare. 10. Same as 6, 7, and 8. 11. Same as 6, 7, 8, and 10. 12. This program has the same corruption issues as the rental assistance; they have an array of barriers which prevents someone in real poverty from accessing the funds; it mostly goes towards salaries for the program administrators; needs lots of reform. 13. Ok, a phone; but, what good is a phone with no house or money to feed yourself? So, after all that, there is no actual welfare for a single adult out of a job other than food stamps, once unemployment benefits expire, as I said; some may get the $550 in disability benefits, but, someone better be helping you with a place to stay. But, good link, and nice try; I can go over the rest, but, I’m aware of those listed 13.

“2. The maximum you can get off disability payment is $2,663 tax free, and you say this isn't freeloading, yet as a guy with a Bachelor's degree and seven years of working full-time, I've never made that much money after taxes (excluding weeks with overtime) and I'm living pretty well. Getting that money for free would be totally awesome.”

Other than freeloading, what would you have a mentally retarded adult, wheelchair bound single adult, quadriplegic single adult, four limbs amputated adult, totally blind single adult, or terminally ill single adult do? Where is the symmetry in them versus this mythical person who wants to sit on the sofa instead of going to this local McDonalds that will hire him who only needs to go through the formality of filling out an application? As that’s the only one getting the $2,663. That would be a very small number of the unemployment pool. Again, your premise seems to be that no one or very few people are facing the big three: institutionalized discrimination, blacklisting, or discrimination based on looks; your premise is that someone always applied to a position for which they were unqualified; would be a very naive way of looking at things, outside of being right winged.

“It can be roughly $200 dollars per person added to whatever other welfare benefits you're already getting.”

No, in Alabama, you cannot combine the full amount of food stamps with $550 in disability; when you get disability, they virtually remove the food stamps.

“Uh, no. It may be true that the longer you are unemployed the harder it is to find a job, but it's certainly not true that you can't find a job. Lots of women drop out of the work force for years or even decades to raise their kids and then join back without any difficulty. I know a couple women who had no education beyond a high school diploma who did this and found jobs during the height of unemployment following the 2008 financial collapse. There are jobs. Many people are just too lazy or too prideful to take them.”

For a white American, yes, for a minority American, no; it literally is reality that you will not be able to find a job, particularly if the big three: institutionalized racism, blacklisting, and looks are working against you. I seriously doubt that your example is authentic (but, perhaps, they had a very unique skill and a certain number of years of experience in that area and are likely white). And, no, if you have no income after so long, you have no pride, and beg for employment that you previously would have considered undignified; fear of becoming homeless is a powerful incentive for looking for a job for non-white people, also; otherwise, how do you explain the existence of prostitutes, as one example? Surely, all of them are not runaway girls who were brought in by some crafty pimp on the prowl looking for runaway girls, where, most prostitutes are adults. Again, I don’t think you’re naive, just right winged.

“There are definitely studies that suggest there is racial bias in hiring practices. I have no problem saying black people most likely have a harder time getting hired. However, there's a world of difference between saying someone has a harder time finding a job and saying someone can't find a job. In a country where a black man is elected President, glass ceiling arguments hold no weight, and even when Jim Crow was in full force and generally accepted as a good thing, black people still found work, so I don't buy any arguments that say, "I can't find a job because I'm black."”

And racial bias in the hiring process is a huge factor and can most certainly lead to circumstances where someone cannot find a job; to go back to my prior post, it literally looked like I wouldn’t be able to find a job in all of the areas where you think we are too prideful to look; I was actually rescued by my education in science by the federal government under unusual circumstances where I didn’t need to go for an in person interview, and where I was relatively just out of school; but, adding blacklisting is clearly a key now, in my present circumstances, looking for both the undignified jobs and the good jobs. The fact that we got a black President actually seems to have made it worse for minorities, as the people who issue the jobs likely did not vote for Obama; so, it’s a way of sticking it to us, clearly. I’m saying I cannot find work because I’m black and blacklisted, not just black.

“You say your resume is better than the other guys, but I'm not sure how you could judge that since you are obviously biased towards yourself (who isn't?) or how you could even know what the other guy's resume was. I'm not sure what the rubric for grading your application is. ”

No, I wasn’t implying that my resume was better, I was implying that my qualifications were better; qualifications supersede a good resume until you face someone with similar enough qualifications; you could not survive summery judgment, for lacking qualifications, but a better resume; big difference; there is nothing objective to pursue based on the opinion of my resume, by me or the perspective employer; I can see you’re not convinced, because your premise seems to be that they really picked the person who was clearly more qualified; and, you don’t get that my knowledge comes from some degree of detail concerning who I faced, thanks to the EEOC suite. Sure, you can’t know, if your only option is to assume the reasons that you didn’t get called back; and, the distinction is a private sector job versus a public sector job; the public sector kind of has an objective measure that ranks your application, where the public sector does not, and hence, the need for more government intervention. And, the reason I can know, because I applied to a job for which I was overqualified; it comes down to you assuming that I tried to apply for a position for which I was not qualified, and, that knee jerk assumption, that everyone has, is the reason you were not convinced; your reality underestimates the black man’s ability to make a common sense judgment to only applied to that for which you qualify, and to acquire those qualification, if you lack them; I can see you have that blanket opinion of lazy, with the added assumption of feeling I’m above the jobs that I really qualify to fill; right wing much.

“I've never even heard of such a thing actually, but I suppose one could be invented, but even if your application was better, that doesn't mean you were turned down because of racism.”

Probably because you have that right wing assumption that everyone in the government is incompetent, so, it’s not worth a white man’s dignity to apply for a job with the government? Or, that a private sector company is so skilled and benevolent? Otherwise, simply having applied for a government job, you’d know that the education requirements are listed and, than, you’re ranked according to your knowledge, skills, and abilities in comparison to the listed skill requirements for the job; you than have to provide the documentation proving what you say is true of yourself; you than get rated; could it be better, absolutely, but, it’s much more objective than being left to assume that someone was more qualified, due to a lack of response or an open ended rejection; the government tried doing this, but, since I applied to a job that I was clearly overqualified, I could conclude something was fishy, and, so, pursued a case to at least get to the bottom of it, if not get the job; if I were wrong, the employer would eagerly quash the case as expeditiously as possible, instead of having a pending case over years; in my case, initially, it’s race, but, there are other factors associated with retaliation and disadvantaging me as a persistent litigant that they were unable to swiftly put away; absent the litigation, I believe race would get me at least to the final 2 where they would be putting together some excuse about how someone else did better during the interview or something, but, they still have an obstacle; in my case, however, they have a host of obstacles; again, this comes down to the tactical skills of myself, being seriously trying to land a job again; if I applied to a different sub-agency or government agency, I give the opponent a slightly easier case, and, why would it be in my best interest to do that, when I know approximately what problems I’m facing or might be facing? Or, your premises or even worse, you think we African Americans have no ability to learn from their experiences; right winged much.

“Hell, I had great grades in college and received several marks of excellence, yet I've never yet received great success probably in part because I am awkward in interpersonal relations, and I'm sure that dinged me badly in the interviews I've had. ”

Sugar, I’m well past expecting to find a job based on good grades; that was when I first got this job; now, experience in the job supersedes your education, especially in how the government should be ranking your application. However, when I was in that position, my skill in understanding my qualifications versus the required qualifications came into play. You think only whites know how to apply for jobs that meet their qualifications? Understood, those are the common assumptions and stereotypes by everyone except blacks, when we hear that the Supreme Court is taking a case labeled as “affirmative action”.

“That sort of thing can't be quantified on a rubric, and even if you are fantastically personable, there are many other factors which can't be quantified on a resume or application which easily could have lead to you being refused a job. My boss is currently looking for a new employee, and he heavily considers personality types and considers who he thinks will mesh well with his current team. You can't quantify gut.”

Hence, the reason why more government intervention is required. We need a way to quantify everything that can be quantified, and, limiting or eliminating factors which cannot be quantified from something as important to someone’s life as acquiring a livelihood; the first thing we do to get past a large number of obstacles to employment is an acquiring an education; if you can get an education to get a job, you should also be able to know everything you must aim to land the job; and, the government should intervene to standardize this pursuit by a process of reduction; expanding the requirements to a large number of intangibles increases the subjectivity of the process to where you can avoid hiring an African American, because of bias against them. Hiring shouldn’t be based on a gut feeling. Now, can you begin to see why I see right wing and Republican as not in my best interest, as a minority? Because you hold these premises and presumptions, but, at the same time, refuse to see things any other way.

“You're story is actually a great example of why government intervention in the free market doesn't work. There are already laws saying you can't discriminate, and yet discrimination already occurs. What do you want the government to do? Pass another law that says it's super duper illegal to discriminate? Yeah, that'll work. The fact is that anybody with racist intentions can simply refuse to hire a race they dislike and lie about their intentions.”

Oh, it could work; we just need the American public to understand that Republicans are hindering efforts to institute the required additions, brought about by Republican judges. Republican judges is precisely why further government intervention is necessary to tear away the obstacles instituted to limit the effectiveness of the discrimination laws; that’s not saying discrimination is “super duper illegal”, it’s removing artificial obstacles put in place by Republican judges. If someone knows how to file their EEOC complaint correctly, the employer will need to overcome much greater obstacles than just not wanting to hire an African American; and, that’s precisely the logic in requiring an employer to rank the applicants.

Avatar image for makkyd
MakkyD

6989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Depends on how the left and right wing parties operate in a country. Countries with major parties with socialist leanings (left wing) would more likely to have physically stronger supporters due to association with manual labour etc.