Sorry but I don't understand this graph at first glance. I'll try again later, maybe.

All three of those metrics are based on false assumptions.

I think this is a loaded and heavily biased line questions. I understand the intent of these questions and the reasons they are worded the way they are. The most confusing to some people is the " femine & soft" attibutes that one of the questions eludes to. First and foremost, I find the attibute very distasteful and ignorant. That being said, the author of this line of questions is attempting to stir in people a nostalgic, romanticized notion that in the (good ole days) men were men and were tough dutiful, and masculine. Often they tend to cite the WW2 era as the greatest generation of men to have ever lived because of the sacrafices they made horrors they endured in the service. It is highly inaccurate. It is true that people were different back then. Society was still reeling from WW1 and the great depression. Capitalism had bourn upon us this huge inequality in which made FDR a 4 term president. People suffered unimaginable hunger and did without housing and warm clothing. All the while the business tycoons like Big Boss Tweed and folks like the Rockefellers, Chase, & several others were the richest people who hoarded all the wealth, much like todays situation, but without any protections against the savages of such a system. Men were forced to work long hours for little pay and feared repremands or termination if they complained. They would be blacklisted from jobs so they could not find work. Women and children worked in these sweat shops under even worse conditions. It was a patriarchal society to the point of which men were the only ones that had any say or rights. That aspect alone is romanticized by rightwing conservatives way too often. Men were (hard) for a reason. They had to be to make it in such cut throat conditions.
Men today are not soft. They are more intouch with reality and they nolonger have to mesh with the hypermasculine mold that men from a far gone era had to fit. We still have our problems, and we are seeing some of the old issues coming back into the forefront of society, such as wealth inequality, desperate financial measures, increasingly terrible working conditions and wage stagnation. Meanwhile, the wealthy such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have become the ultra wealthy business tycoons that want to control nearly every aspect of our lives. That is the reality of society today. People have changed to adapt to the enviroment in which we live. To elude to a trait of hypermasculinity as a lost foregone attribute that should be revived is a sentiment that only those who never look forward to progress share. Sorry for rambling.

It don't mean sheeit...

It sure makes me proud to be a Democrat

Considering that half of society actually is female then it would stand to reason that a significant portion of society is feminine. What "soft" means is utterly ambiguous. Soft as in easy? Fewer people die these days of war, starvation, and disease... so does that mean we're "too soft"? Isn't one of the goals of progress and technology to make our lives easier?

All three premises are negative.

How can you have the most dangerous country on Earth run by morons? Ugh.

Not surprising.

Those questions are totally loaded. Is society "too soft" lol.
Sort of went over statistics and surveys many years ago and being totally neutral and unbiased in what is being asked was key. Questions like those are examples of what not to do in framing questions. Eg "Society as a whole has become too soft and feminine"...........what exactly is being asked here? Insinuates that being feminine equates being soft, whatever tf "soft" means.

Fascinating, is this a Pew Research Study?