On whether machismo/lack thereof is more attractive (vaguely psychology)

[ScienceNostalgia101]

I start with a fictional example of the topic being discussed, partly because the whole Internet's talking about this show in anticipation of a new installment coming out next year, but partly because naming any real-life examples would make people far more focused on the confounding factors in their supposed attractiveness or lack thereof.

 

WARNING: Vulgar language in linked image.

 

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/821341-neon-genesis-evangelion

 

So this meme is satirizing the in-show attraction female characters have to Shinji Ikari, the protagonist of the Japanese anime NGE. Shinji isn't exactly your stereotypical macho man. He refuses to accept conscription into combat under any circumstances short of a wounded girl his own age having to fight in his stead, outwardly admitting it's because he's afraid. He acts like a house-husband cooking for Misato, and he apologizes to Asuka for things he has no reason to believe are his fault. His self-doubt is notoriously a recurring theme of the show and he is known for crying a lot. (Sidenote: The gradual decline in commentators' patience for him is a lot more noticeable when you skip several episodes at a time.)

 

I say this not just to talk about NGE; and a part of me almost wonders if this belongs in the Lounge; but also to discuss that meme as a jumping-off point to discuss, with those more educated in the sciences than an NGE site might necessarily attract, the real-life implications of the phrase used in that meme.

 

In real life, I can think of many reasons machismo could be attractive. I can also think of many why it wouldn't. But since it need not be a package deal, I'll dissect each component individually. I will address causes and effects, for each. For causes, I will focus primarily on evolutionary psychology, in the context of gene-centered evolution in particular. For effects, I will focus on how people talk about this indirectly, in the context of spontaneous sincerity.

 

Eagerness vs. reluctance to go into battle: If among our ancestors a tribe were to launch an invasion against another tribe; and lost so badly that only those who refused to join were the only ones surviving; isn't it those few who refused who'd sire a disproportionate share of the next generation? On the other hand, if the other tribe were the aggressors, the few who refused to fight back could also be considered partly culpable for the aggressor tribe's reduction in the victim tribe's population through mass slaughter, or the interbreeding between aggressor and victim tribes through mass rape. So the question is by what particular means would evolution incentivize attraction to a willingness to go into battle, and/or to sound judgment in which battles are worth going into. Whatever effects this may have are murky; sometimes soldiers are seen as tough guys, other times they're seen as "suckers" who supposedly were fools to risk their own lives like this. Tens of millions of Americans voted for a man who referred to them as such. More precisely on the matter of attraction, there was also the "girls say yes to boys who say no" campaign, but it's not clear whether this was sincere or just a means to use horniness as an incentive to encourage draft dodging.

 

Self-confidence vs. self-doubt: Well, confidence in general, in a platonic context or otherwise, is kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't. If a politician doesn't bother to prepare a concession speech, his supporters will call that confidence, and his critics will call that arrogance. So the question then becomes how useful attraction to confidence would be among our caveman ancestors. Would the more confident ones have been more willing to "sell" their ability to pleasure her, and the self-doubting ones therefore been less convincing, or would the more confident ones have been seen as overcompensating for sexual skills that don't "speak for themselves"?

 

Unapologetic vs. apologetic: Obviously apologizing too much just tarnishes the perceived sincerity of one's actual apologies. But if you go too far in the other direction; and apologize too little; it could create an image of someone too in denial about having done regrettable things to admit it, and in turn, also untrustworthy. Where would the tradeoff be? Would it be different among cavemen? Why or why not? Would there be less to apologize for if a less sophisticated society had more predictable consequences?

 

Conformity vs. nonconformity to gender roles: Obviously many of our gender roles are artificial. But once something's gender-normativeness has been established in our heads, would any perceived straying from it be a point in its favour (ie. a willingness to be oneself that is resilient in the face of social pressure?) or a point against it? (Resistance to the norms of the tribe?) Obviously we have to have some emotional recognition of a willingness to stray from gender norms, or else ours wouldn't have been able to differ from those of a caveman in the first place.

 

Defiance vs. subservience: In a perfect converse to the above, the advantage of subservience is obvious (useful to a superior who needs someone willing to do what they're told) but there are advantages in defiance, such as a willingness to trust one's judgment that is resilient in the face of social pressure. I keep hearing that our evolutionary cousins, the great apes, are known for "egalitarian" societies, yet I've always been skeptical such a term can even be defined, let alone found in nature. How would they handle someone with a disability, for instance, who can't contribute in necessarily the same ways as everyone else? Even those who claim to believe in "equality" can be caught making cheap shots at the appearance or superficial frailty of those they don't like.

 

Stoicism vs. crying: To suppress or conceal one's crying is to feign greater stoicism than one actually has, unless one replaces that crying with rage, in which case... actually, I would've always thought being enraged would be more embarrassing than crying, as that tells other people "I am so helpless against my own rage that you could provoke me into doing violence that would land me in jail!" No one goes to jail for crying... that I know of. But I guess the advantage would be to feign being more of a threat. Again, I'm trying to picture how this would've worked out around cavemen. "If I'm angry, I can kick the ass of whoever in that other tribe threatened to punch you in your pregnant belly" or something like that. Or if they suppress both their crying and their rage, "I'm so rational I can figure out how to most effectively protect you from whoever in that other tribe threatened to punch you in your pregnant belly." But alternatively, the advantage of crying would be "at least I care that he threatened that, and I care in a way that isn't going to make me do anything rash" perhaps?

 

All things considered, if I had to guess, I would assume that women are more attracted frail/subservient/apologetic/self-doubting guys than society claims. It's just that it's not in society's interests to promote that. After all, could you imagine the potential ramifications of a society where every man and boy on the face of the Earth now had an incentive to feign all of those traits, just because they thought it's what women were attracted to? Feigned toughness/dominance/shamelessness/confidence can be mildly irritating, but the feigning of self-doubt and poor self-worth, on the part of most men and boys, could make everyone so used to hearing it that those who really need help with their issues might be mistaken for faking it.

 

. . .

 

Sidenote: The more I think about evolutionary psychology, the more grateful I am that the 21st century is a century of laws.