Adam Stanaland, University of Richmond

When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared on a Jan. 10, 2025, episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” he lamented that corporate culture had become too “feminine,” suppressing its “masculine energy” and abandoning supposedly valuable traits such as aggression.

The workplace, he concluded, has been “neutered.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, Zuckerberg has also embraced stereotypically masculine pursuits in his personal life. He’s become a mixed martial arts aficionado and has shared his affinity for smoking meats. On his expansive Hawaii compound, he’s even taken up bow-and-arrow pig hunting.

He’s come a long way from the geeky image of his youth.

But is Zuckerberg right? Do workplaces in the U.S. need to embrace a more diesel-fueled, street-fighting, meat-eating mentality?

As a social psychologist who studies masculinity and aggression, I think it’s important to evaluate what the science says about Zuckerbeg’s claims – and to consider what it means for the future of workplace culture in the U.S.

Show no weakness

In 2018, sociologist Jennifer Berdahl and her colleagues coined the term “masculinity contest culture” to describe workplaces rife with cutthroat competition, toxic leadership, bullying and harassment.

Integrating decades of prior research on masculinity in the workplace, Berdahl and her collaborators were able to map how masculinity contest cultures operate, as well as show how they affect organizations and individual employees.

In her experiments, she had participants agree or disagree with statements such as “expressing any emotion other than anger or pride is seen as weak,” based on their perceptions of their own organization. Using advanced statistical techinques, Berdahl’s team was able to distill masculinity contest cultures down to four components: “showing no weakness,” “strength and stamina,” “putting work first” and “dog eat dog.”

Then they were able to show how these cultures are tied to a host of negative outcomes for workers and companies, such as burnout, turnover and poor well-being. And at the organization level, they can foment a dysfunctional office environment, toxic leadership and even bullying and harassment.

An imagined grievance

Based on this research, then, it seems like promoting rigid masculinity in the workplace is not the best solution for an arguably already struggling Meta.

What, then, led Zuckerberg to claim that the workplace has been neutered and must be infused with masculine energy? Has the American office really gone full “Legally Blonde”?

Zuckerberg’s own company isn’t exactly a paragon of parity: Its total workforce, as of 2022, was nearly two-thirds male, while its tech workforce was three-quarters male. Furthermore, according to psychologists Sapna Cheryan and Hazel Markus, workplaces in the U.S. still reflect what they call “masculine defaults” – cultures that reward characteristics or behaviors generally associated with men.

This can range from how companies describe themselves – for example, as places that are “aggressive” and “unrestrained” – to hosting events catering to traditionally male pursuits, such as golf outings.

Although Cheryan and Markus’ analysis centers on how masculine defaults make it harder for women to carve out their professional paths, they can harm everybody, including men.

My research, for example, has shown that when men feel pressured to fulfill certain masculine expectations, they can develop fragile masculine identities, which are linked with aggression and anxiety.

Although the pervasiveness of masculinity norms can give men an upper hand in the workplace, I wonder whether men are contorting themselves to fit into outdated molds of who succeeds at work. Indeed, research shows that successful organizations promote a healthy mix of stereotypically masculine and feminine qualities.

In other words, it’s best when people of all genders feel comfortable showcasing traits such as cooperation and agency, qualities that don’t necessarily fall into one gender camp.

The rise of the fragile billionaire

If many workplaces still possess dog-eat-dog cultures and celebrate masculinity – with evidently poor outcomes – you might wonder why billionaire corporate leaders would advocate for them.

The most generous explanation is ignorance. Zuckerberg could simply be unaware that most offices in the U.S. still possess competitive environments and traits associated with traditional masculinity.

Although this could be the case, I think there could be two other explanations for Zuckerberg’s promotion of rigid masculinity norms.

There could be an economic motive. Perhaps Zuckerberg thinks that promoting his company as an arena of high-stakes competition and aggression is the best way to attract talent and spur innovation in a field already dominated by men. It’s often thought that competition drives innovation. So “Meta needs to be more masculine” could actually be code for “Meta needs to breed more internal competition, which will spur innovation and turn a profit.” This assumption is also misguided: Recent research has shown that internal competition may actually stifle innovation.

There could also be a psychological motive. I’ve found in my research that men are most likely to cling to notions of rigid masculinity when they feel pressure to “man up” and are insecure about themselves.

Perhaps Zuckerberg sees diversity efforts as a challenge to his power. Maybe he thinks aligning himself with President Donald Trump’s version of masculinity will help him gain and retain power, especially as he faces challenges from other tech giants. So his promotion of an aggressive workplace, along with his slashing of policies that could make him look “weak,” are moves to reinforce his status as a leader, as an innovator and as a man.

This isn’t to say that activities such as hunting and mixed martial arts are inherently bad, or even inherently masculine: There are plenty of female hunters and UFC fighters. Nor is it to say that certain masculine characteristics in the workplace are inherently bad.

But when I see middle-aged billionaires – Zuckerberg isn’t the only one – exhibiting the signs of fragile masculinity that I’ve observed among young adult men and adolescent boys, I can’t help but wonder what the country’s future holds.

Adam Stanaland, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Richmond

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Lorne J. Hofseth, University of South Carolina

Red 3 – also called FD&C Red No. 3, erythrosine or E127 – has been widely used in food, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals since its FDA approval in 1969. You’ve likely encountered Red 3 before. It’s a common additive to many candies, beverages, baked goods, cereals, maraschino cherries and gelatin desserts, as well as certain medications, syrups and cosmetics.

However, mounting scientific evidence suggests that consuming Red 3 poses significant health risks. These risks prompted California to ban its use in food in 2023 and the Food and Drug Administration to ban its use in both food and pharmaceuticals nationwide on Jan. 15, 2025.

As a researcher studying inflammation and cancer, I investigate how synthetic food dyes affect human health. Stricter regulations reflect growing concerns over the negative physiological effects of Red 3 and other synthetic dyes on your body, including causing cancer.

Health risks of Red 3

Over the past 35 years, an increasing amount of scientific evidence has identified the negative health effects of Red 3. While researchers haven’t yet established a direct link between Red 3 and cancer in people, substantial evidence from animal studies points to its carcinogenic potential.

First, Red 3 disrupts thyroid hormone regulation through several mechanisms. It inhibits the thyroid gland’s ability to absorb iodine, a key component for synthesizing thyroid hormones, and blocks an enzyme essential for converting one thyroid hormone to another, contributing to thyroid dysfunction. Along with other impairments in thyroid hormone function, Red 3 increases the risk of thyroid-related disorders.

Second, Red 3 may promote thyroid tumor formation. Several studies exposing rats and pigs to Red 3 observed enlarged tumorous thyroid glands and abnormalities in hormone regulation.

Third, Red 3 can have toxic effects on the brain in multiple ways. Rat studies have found that this synthetic dye increases oxidative stress, which damages tissues, and reduces the antioxidants that control oxidative stress, impairing communication between neurons. Studies in rodents also found that Red 3 triggers neuroinflammation that leads to neuronal damage and dysfunction. Additionally, Red 3 may interact with the amyloid-beta peptides linked to neurodegenerative conditions like Alzheimer’s disease and worsen those conditions.

Regulatory momentum

Red 3 first faced scrutiny in the 1980s when several animal studies linked it to thyroid tumors in male rats. This led to its 1990 ban in cosmetics in the U.S., although its use in food persisted under industry pressure. While the European Union restricted the use of Red 3 to only certain types of processed cherries in 1994, the U.S. has lagged behind.

California’s 2023 ban of Red 3 in foods, effective in 2027, reignited debate on Red 3 and its link to cancer and spurred 24 organizations to advocate for federal action.

This debate culminated in the FDA’s nationwide ban in January 2025. While the FDA cites no direct evidence of Red 3’s carcinogenic effect in people, it acknowledges that animal studies provide sufficient basis for regulatory action. The FDA’s decision aligns with the 1958 Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, mandating a ban on additives shown to cause cancer in humans or animals.

Notably, it took over 35 years from the initial findings of thyroid cancer in rodents to the eventual ban in 2025.

A path forward

The progression from Red 3’s approval to its prohibition highlights the conflict between industrial interests and public health. Continued vigilance over Red 3 could help the nation prioritize consumer safety.

Under the FDA’s mandate, manufacturers must reformulate food products and ingested drugs to leave out Red 3 by January 2027 and January 2028, respectively. While some countries still permit use of Red 3, U.S. imports must meet domestic safety standards. Harmonizing global standards on regulating and evaluating synthetic dyes is essential to protect consumer health.

Several companies selling ultra-processed foods have begun the shift away from synthetic dyes. In 2016, Mars announced plans to remove all artificial colors from its human food products over a five-year period. In 2024, General Mills announced that it would eliminate artificial colors and flavors from its products.

Consumers can protect themselves from Red 3 exposure by reading ingredient labels for “FD&C Red No. 3” or “E127” and choosing products that use natural dyes. Preparing homemade foods with natural color alternatives like beet juice or turmeric is another option. Supporting dye-free brands and staying informed about regulatory changes can further reduce your exposure while promoting safer food practices.

Ongoing research and policy reforms focused on public safety could help ensure that food additives like Red 3 no longer put consumer health at risk.

Lorne J. Hofseth, Professor and Associate Dean for Research, College of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Tatsiana Kulakevich, University of South Florida

Europe’s longest-serving authoritarian leader, Belarus’ Alexander Lukashenko, is set to run for a seventh term on Jan. 26, 2025. And even before the first vote is counted, it can be stated with a fair degree of confidence that he will prevail.

With no genuine opposition and a history of vote rigging, Lukashenko – in power since 1994 – has further slanted things in his favor this time around by banning overseas voting, removing the minimum turnout threshold and awarding himself lifelong immunity and a permanent seat in parliament.

But while the 2025 election is unlikely to bring change, it is, nonetheless, consequential.

Belarus under Lukashenko has become embroiled in the battle between NATO-backed Western Europe and Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Meanwhile, Belarus’ record on human rights – and its complicity in Russia’s war in Ukraine – have led to extensive sanctions and diplomatic isolation of the Eastern European nation, worsening the life of its people.

As a scholar on Eastern Europe, I believe the continued rule of Lukashenko, emboldened by a seventh consecutive “victory,” will have grave implications for regional and global politics, as well as the trajectory of the country itself.

Aiding the Russian war machine

Under Lukashenko, Belarus has served as a staging ground for Russian military operations, including its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

And the country remains a critical supplier of military-purpose products to Russia, providing technologies such as optical devices, including sights and thermal imaging for vehicles, artillery ammunition and radio-electronic equipment and software.

This has helped Russia ramp up its military hardware throughout the Ukraine war, enabling the production and enhancement of key systems, including tanks, missiles and air defense platforms.

Such actions have resulted in blowback for Lukashenko and Belarus. In August 2024, the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control slapped sanctions on Belarusian entities supporting Russia’s military efforts.

However, Russian loans and cheap energy have allowed Belarus to avoid the full impact of these sanctions. And this in turn has only entrenched the Belarus-Russia relationship, meaning that Belarus is more in hock to Putin than it was before.

In the months leading up to 2025’s election, Lukashenko’s government has signaled a closer relationship to Russia militarily. In October 2024, the ministries of defense of both Belarus and Russia announced Zapad-2025, a joint strategic exercise scheduled for later this year, which will focus on both conventional and nuclear components.

Belarus is already hosting dozens of Russian nuclear weapons and preparing for the planned deployment of Oreshnik, a Russian hypersonic ballistic missile.

According to Putin, Oreshnik missiles could be deployed to Belarus in the second half of 2025. They will remain under Russian control, but Moscow will allow Minsk to select the targets.

Weaponizing the NATO border

Being pulled increasingly into the orbit of Moscow is all the more important given Belarus’ geographical location – bordering NATO and European Union countries Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, as well as sharing a border with NATO-aspiring Ukraine.

Lukashenko has previously weaponized the border by orchestrating hybrid threats, including the cynical use of Middle Eastern migrants. In 2021 and later, his regime facilitated the movement of thousands of migrants from Iraq, Syria and other countries through Belarus, directing them toward EU countries – creating humanitarian crises and straining these countries’ border security systems in the process.

In June 2022, Poland responded by building a steel border wall to keep migrants out.

In addition to leveraging the migrant issue, Lukashenko has deepened military cooperation with non-Western allies beyond Russia, including China. In July 2024, Belarus hosted Chinese military personnel for joint exercises, focusing on operations near NATO borders.

These activities showcase Lukashenko’s intent to align Belarus with authoritarian anti-Western powers, while increasing the military pressure on NATO countries.

Continued crackdown within the country

For Belarusian citizens, another Lukashenko term means continued restrictions on their freedom.

His government has criminalized fundamental rights, such as peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, while silencing dissent and stifling civil society. Even speaking the Belarusian language has been treated as an act of dissent, with individuals facing detention or harassment for using it publicly as opposed to Russian, which has become the dominant language in the country under Lukashenko – much to Putin’s approval.

In 2020, Freedom House’s Global Freedom Score for Belarus stood at 19/100, already reflecting its authoritarian governance. By 2024, however, the score had plummeted to 8/100, cementing Belarus’s position as one of the most oppressive nations globally.

Over 1,200 political prisoners remain incarcerated as of 2024, including prominent opposition leaders such as Pavel Seviarynets, Mikalai Statkevich, and Nobel Laureate Ales Bialiatski.

Independent media has been shut down, with anti-Lukashenko journalists facing arrest and harassment. The media crackdown has led to a near-total dismantling of press freedom in Belarus, which was ranked 167th out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ 2024 World Press Freedom Index.

A lot of this occurred during and since a crackdown prompted by mass protests over Belarus’ last presidential election in 2020. In response to those demonstrations, some 30,000 people were arrested, many of whom reported torture and mistreatment while in custody. In 2020, Belarus’ “civil liberties score,” as marked by Freedom House, was 14/60. But this fell sharply to 6/60 by 2024, indicating the near-total erosion of freedoms such as assembly, association and expression.

Such actions have cemented Belarus’ transformation into a pariah state, isolated from Western democracies and heavily reliant on Russia for political and economic survival.

For the people of Belarus, another term under Lukashenko would see the continuation of his suppression of freedoms and the increasing reliance on Russia for both political and financial stability.

Nonetheless, Lukashenko’s loyalty to the Kremlin ensures that Belarus will remain a critical player in Russia’s broader geopolitical confrontation with NATO and the West.

Tatsiana Kulakevich, Associate Professor of Instruction in the School of Interdisciplinary Global Studies, University of South Florida

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.