Thom is a sexist pig?

95 posts / 0 new

Comments

Who gets locked up for violent crimes is not necessarily a proof of your assertion that "testosterone is a violent drug." There are lots of reasons why most of the inmates in the prisons are men. One of those reasons, for example, is an institutional bias against men in the criminal justice system. Saying that so many men in prisons proves something unflattering about men is anti-male sexism, in the same way that it's racist to say that the fact that blacks are disproportionately represented in the prisons says something unflattering about blacks. And before you say that "men have all the power, and blacks have none," let me head you off at that pass: It's highly debatable that "men have all the power." There's a big difference between power being in the hands of men on the one hand, and men having all the power on the other hand. It might be true that most, or even almost all of the people at the top who have the power are men, but it's also true that the overwhelming majority of the people at the bottom, who have no power, are men. This is why almost all of the dirtiest, and ugliest, and most dangerous, and scariest, and most violent jobs are done by men. Something like 93 percent of the accidental on-the-job deaths in this country are male victims, for example. There are LOTS more powerless men at the bottom, than powerful men at the top. Let's start focusing on the least among us, rather than the powerful few. And it's not like you, Thom, to look at an issue in such a superficial way. You don't do that on any other issue, so why do you do it on gender issues?

I mentioned Warren Farrell's book "The Myth of Male Power" in a post an hour or two ago. It's been 15 years or so since I read that book, but I remember in the prologue he said that gender issues, like all coins, has two sides. It was not his purpose, he said, to denigrate the feminists' side of that coin, but to call attention to the long-ignored OTHER side of that coin. Farrell is not a "male chauvinist pig;" in fact, he is a former president of NOW. I would not only like to recommend that book to you, Thom, but I would find it fascinating to hear him interviewed on your radio show. Just putting the idea in your head.

Ron

Jeebbo's picture
Jeebbo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Mr_Dean:

Thomm is definitely right. Just look at the prisons.

Under that set of assumptions then this must be right also. ...

American Renaissance News: Black-White-East Asian IQ Differences At Least 50% Genetic

Anyone care to mention prisons?

quaestorchickpea's picture
quaestorchickpea
Joined:
May. 12, 2010 7:02 pm

What a bunch of pop-psych hog-wash. You all have been reading way too much John Gray.

In my not so humble opinion the fall back on hormones and neurochemistry is far too easy of an excuse for the behaviors and choices one makes as an individual and/or as part of a group.

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that Thom is right. Then what?

I blame the women.

Huh? WTF, you say? Wait, just listen for a minute. One word: Evolution.

Darwinian natural selection is often characterized in short hand as "survival of the fittest". That's only partly true. Survival is obviously a prerequisite, at least long enough to mate. But the real driver of evolutionary change is "propogation of the sexiest". That's how you get things like the outrageous tail feathers on the male peacock. The guy is seriously handicapped when it comes to escaping from predators but he gets enough action before he's lunch to ensure the propogation of that trait.

Now think back to high school, when the main activity, besides trying to fake learning algebra, was mostly an elaborate mating dance. And who did the girls go for? The peace-loving, low-testosterone, males? Noooo. It was the star athlete. Or the bad-boy with a motorcycle or fast car. Or the leather-clad show-off with long hair and a guitar that your mother REALLY hated. You girls preferentially mated with the high-T males. The only way us low to mid-T guys got any action was to either pretend to be high-T. Or buy you beer, maybe. And this has been going on for generation after generation for something like 200,000 years at least or even hundreds of millions of years if you go all the way back to the invention of sexual reproduction. Untold generations of women having the offspring of the high-T males.

And now you're a little older and claim to be a little wiser. Now you look around the world at all the war and oppression and general violence. And you tsk, tsk at us men who are (supposedly) in charge and blame our testosterone? You make us the way we are and then you blame us for the result? It's a little late don't you think? Maybe, huh?

BTW, this principle goes both ways. And, yes, you're welcome for the boobs.

BadLiberal's picture
BadLiberal
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Jeebbo:

Common_Man_Jason, is an -ism the attitude and beliefs, or the carrying out of those attitudes and beliefs into physical actions? If it's the attitude and beliefs, then many feminists are anti-male sexists. It's not exactly true to say that they don't have the power, either, "institutional" or otherwise. I don't think there's much truth in any claim that slightly more than one-half of the population don't have "power," whatever that is. I say that if you have the beliefs and attitudes, you're guilty of whatever -ism you're talking about. And claiming that the prejudice is "harmless" is weasel words. If they don't have the "institutional" power, that doesn't mean they don't have power in lots of other more subtle, behind-the-scenes ways. Especially since lots of women lead their men around by the tips of their penises. And a lot of those men are the ones who you are claiming have the "power". -- Ron

Nope, you're wrong. But what's clearer is that we're not communicating on the same frequency, and thus the conversation will be a waste.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Just for the record; I don't for a minute accuse Thom of being a sexist pig. I DO, however, think this meme is overly simplistic and politically correct.

My big problem with it is, what am I supposed to do with it? Am I supposed to feel guilty for being born male? I mean it gets a little wearisome at times. As a middle-aged, male, heterosexual of European descent, basically everything's my fault. The only collective blame-bullet I can dodge is the religous one because I'm an atheist. But that only puts me in the category of unfeeling rationalist so I guess I get to bear that cross as well, so to speak.

Meanwhile I'm up to my ears in debt and working 70 to 80 hours a week to support my wife and daughters that I adore. I understand the plight of those who have been oppressed by those who sort of match my demographic characteristics, but that wasn't me doing it. And frankly, I'm getting a little tired of having to carry this load of collective, inherited guilt for things I had nothing to do with by virtue of the accidental circumstances of my birth.

Sorry if that sounds whiny, but where does it end?

BadLiberal's picture
BadLiberal
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote BadLiberal:

Just for the record; I don't for a minute accuse Thom of being a sexist pig. I DO, however, think this meme is overly simplistic and politically correct.

My big problem with it is, what am I supposed to do with it? Am I supposed to feel guilty for being born male? I mean it gets a little wearisome at times. As a middle-aged, male, heterosexual of European descent, basically everything's my fault. The only collective blame-bullet I can dodge is the religous one because I'm an atheist. But that only puts me in the category of unfeeling rationalist so I guess I get to bear that cross as well, so to speak.

Meanwhile I'm up to my ears in debt and working 70 to 80 hours a week to support my wife and daughters that I adore. I understand the plight of those who have been oppressed by those who sort of match my demographic characteristics, but that wasn't me doing it. And frankly, I'm getting a little tired of having to carry this load of collective, inherited guilt for things I had nothing to do with by virtue of the accidental circumstances of my birth.

Sorry if that sounds whiny, but where does it end?

Few people are at the top of the chain. Therefore, we've all experienced being oppressed, and most likely we've all been oppressive. What can one person do? Listen to those less powerful, and speak truth to power.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

After the crash, Iceland's women lead the rescue...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/22/iceland-women

Iceland's spectacular meltdown was caused by a banking and business culture that was buccaneering, reckless - and overwhelmingly male. Business editor Ruth Sunderland travelled to Reykjavik to meet the women now running the country, and heard how they are determined to reinvent business and society by injecting values of openness, fairness and social responsibility

On Bondadagur, or Husband's Day, the menfolk of Iceland are spoiled by their wives and girlfriends, who serve them with traditional delicacies such as ram's testicles and sheep's head jelly, a recipe for which is handily included in the latest online edition of Iceland Review, alongside the latest bulletins on the economic meltdown.

Icelandic women, however, are more likely to be studying the financial news than the recipes - and more likely to be thinking about how to put right the mess their men have made of the banking system than about cooking them comfort food. The tiny nation, with a population of just over 300,000 people, has been overwhelmed by an economic disaster that is threatening its very survival. But for a generation of fortysomething women, the havoc is translating into an opportunity to step into the positions vacated by the men blamed for the crisis, and to play a leading role in creating a more balanced economy, which, they argue, should incorporate overtly feminine values.

louisehartmann's picture
louisehartmann
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Common_Man_Jason:

Therefore, we've all experienced being oppressed, and most likely we've all been oppressive. What can one person do? Listen to those less powerful, and speak truth to power.

Huh? I've never been or felt oppressed nor do I believe I oppress anyone else.

BTW BadLiberal, I'm also one of those Euro decent middle aged evil evil white guys that is supposed to feel guilty over all of the worlds sins. I find that mentality a bit bizarre, but it keeps me coming back to read more. I don't feel guilty, much to the dismay of the handwringers. I know it's horrible to admit this here, but I like being a white guy and find my family heritage interesting. I found it quite entertaining to watch my future father in laws face when I told him my ancestors ate their defeated foes after conquering their country (Vikings). I said something like "so, I've got that going for me". My wife burst out laughing. Her dad didn't know what to make of his new son in law. Still doesn't.

Don't shoulder the guilt burdon. It won't serve you or anyone else well. It only feeds those who want to oppress through guilt.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
Quote meljomur:

This is an interesting debate, and I would even take it a step further and say that women are better at listening then men and therefore making more thoughful rationed decisions before acting.

I'm listening to 2 of my dept managers discuss a expensive problem as I type. One is a female construction mgr that has been here 10+ years and has over 20 years experience. The other is a 10 year disaster restoration mgr that is male. They each have their own style which is pretty interesting to examine strengths and weaknesses.

The female is calculating, organized, friendly, much better at listening, empathizing, and solving most problems. However, when she is insulted or hard pressured, her confidence slips and she will avoid conflict to the detrement of solving the problem. Emotion can occasionally cloud her performance.

The male is ultra organized, good listener, good teacher, negotiator. Does not delegate as well. Does not get rattled when pressured. Is willing to step up intensity when needed. Never shys away from conflict. Work issues are not emotional.

Both are two of my top people. It is interesting to hear them debate an issue. In this case invilving a less than desirable customer and approx $100K, the female make a strong case as to what should happen with the right amount of concern. The male countered with "these are the facts, like it or not". Both will take part in solving the problem. Both were concerned about a face to face with the customer as both were surprisingly a little intimidated. I ended up dealing with Mr not so ethical customer as I have a different approach than both of them. In this case, it is not a negotiation. It is a factual no option statement of what will happen. The alternative is spelled out in my own gentle fashion. I think testosterone plays a huge part and in this case, and is essential to solve this problem.

Sometimes, negotiations aren't as effective. I collected my money in 10 minutes.

BTW, 4 of our top 5 managers that manage departments are women.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

I think we all know that men are more violent than women. There is no disputing this fact as you can just look at the prisons. In fact, the male gender of almost all animial species are more violent than their female counterpart. It's natural and yes it's a direct result of testosterone.

Thom Hartmann is correct.

Mr_Dean's picture
Mr_Dean
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 8:58 am

Could the high crime rate for men or women be a breakdown of the relation between men and women as opposed to simply bad men?

Also let us not forget that the plasticides and other toxic sustances are estrogen mimics, and they are seemingly destroying male fertility. I say estrogen is the evil one! I am sorry but this hormone thing is scientific simplicity in overdrive. You are going to find a much larger cause and effect with various types of socialization and violent attitudes than you ever or with high testosterone levels and such behaviors. If this is what Thom is saying it is silly. But as I have said earlier, I think the statement is meant as a metaphor

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Amen.

Just tired of talking.

dwalker81's picture
dwalker81
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Volitzer wrote

I don't know if you can attribute it all to the Y chromosome but let's face it women in general aren't big risk takers.

How often have they had the chance to take risks in ways that stand out, like going to war, creating a company on a new product with little money? For much of history they have been excluded from such activities. The best they could do was be the power behind the throne. The Suffragettes certainly took risks, as did earlier British queens. And some women are now signing up for the military and rising to power in commerce and politics now that they can. But don't look to their numbers ever equaling those of men - many women have child bearing and raising to deal with as well.

Similarly, many women are now achieving degrees these days, now that they can. Did the fact that they were not getting degrees a couple of hundred years or more ago mean they were stupider than men? Hardly.

Thom talks about how people of colour may be earning the same wage as whites, yet many are still poorer because they do not have the benefit of capital handed down from generation to generation. It is the same for power. The people who are born on third base and think they have hit a triple are generally white males who are far more likely to take risks (often with others' lives or careers) than those who only have a little, whatever their colour or gender.

So it is difficult to compare statistics even when a current snapshot shows that current wealth or power are more equal than they have been for a long time. But there must be a reason why men tend to hold the power in so many societies, and why more of them end up in jail for violent crime. Testosterone looks like a good candidate to me.

It reminds me of the different between male and female swans (cobs and pens). During the breeding season the pen spends a lot of time sitting quietly on the nest, while the cob spends much of his time driving off all intruders. There have to be biological reasons why the two behave differently, to fulfil their different roles. But they are the same species, and can modify their behaviour. There is one cob near me that usually manages to keep other swans off of a whole lake. Yet on the Thames, swans often live very close to each other.

A lot of our problems are due to the fact that we have developed a society where the old patterns of behaviour are not necessary; we don't have to hunt for food, and we have technology we can use to protect many of our belongings. We need to adapt our society so that we can be ourselves more without harm.

SueN's picture
SueN
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Meljomur, I think you are right about Maggie. What puzzles me is how women can come to power and still retain their feminine side. They have to compete against males in a male-dominated power game. Whether those who succeed do so because they have some hormone levels nearer to those of men than most women, or they choose to suppress their feminine side, I don't know. But they are hardly representative of women, and their successes do not easily translate to a feminine society.

SueN's picture
SueN
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

BadLiberal, I think you are right about evolution. I seem to recall seeing a study which said that what women look for in a sexual partner is different to what they look for in a husband, though. It works both ways, with the current trend in males to prefer very skinny teenage-looking women - boobs on stilts - on the cat walk and TV. Narrow waists have been popular in English society for some time. Those aren't the best attributes for easy child-bearing. I seem to recall seeing another study which said that we are responsible for so many cats retaining kitten-like qualities of behaviour for much longer in their lives than is natural. On the other hand, there are some societies where (at least until the arrival of TV) people with a lot of fat were looked up to because that was a sign that they were wealthy and had surplus food to eat.

So how can we change this? Or is it all hormonal? And would the change that we decided was best turn out to be the best in the long run, as decided by evolution? Maybe the current trend is nature's more gentle way to try and reduce the population. Nature has many ways of doing that, including war and plague.

SueN's picture
SueN
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Fascinating article about Iceland, thanks, Louise. The question I have is, with greater equality there, how did Iceland end up crashing so badly? Perhaps it was the legacy of the old way of doing things, which has given way with a major earthquake rather than gradual slips.

I'm not blaming the males in all this. Every man woman and child has inherited the same kind of society, with its traditional roles and powers. And whatever your role, it is hard to try and bring about change.

It is going to be very interesting to watch Iceland. Good luck to them. Anyone who can break the hold of bankster thinking will do the world a favour, IMO.

SueN's picture
SueN
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Mr_Dean:

I think we all know that men are more violent than women. There is no disputing this fact as you can just look at the prisons. In fact, the male gender of almost all animial species are more violent than their female counterpart. It's natural and yes it's a direct result of testosterone.

Thom Hartmann is correct.

There is no disputing that blacks and hispanics make up a larger percentage of inmates also. Does that mean something in your world?

From what I read, testosterone is about the same for whites and but higher levels in men from Mexico. The culprit is Estradiol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which is higher in blacks. An interesting portion relating to women:

Scientists have identified the Marilyn Monroe hormone that is linked to an hour-glass body shape in women, and also an increased desire to trade-up to new men. Women who have high levels of oestradiol (estradiol) also show elevated confidence and a greater inclination to have sex outside of their current relationship, according to the US-based research. The ovarian steroid hormone is also associated with having a symmetrical face, large breasts, and a low waist-to-hip ratio. "Marilyn Monroe is actually a really good example of a woman who was almost certainly high in oestradiol," Australian sexologist Dr Frances Quirk said in response to the research. "She was a classic hour-glass figure and because of her relationship pattern - she was a serial monogamist. "Her relationships last three or four years or slightly longer, and, if you look at the men she had relationships with, they increased in status."

The University of Texas study took in 52 young women, aged 17 to 30, and checked their oestradiol levels using a saliva swab. They were asked to rate themselves on perceived desirability, were quizzed on their sexual motivations, and also their inclinations relating to their current relationship. An independent group also assessed photographs of the women to provide an external assessment of their attractiveness. "High-oestradiol women were considered significantly more physically attractive by themselves and others," the study, published in the journal Biology Letters, concluded. "These women reported somewhat lower levels of satisfaction with and commitment to their primary partners, and a significantly greater likelihood ... of becoming acquainted with new potential mates." The study found that, while women with high levels of oestradiol reported being "significantly more likely" to have a serious affair, they did not indicate a greater likelihood of having "brief sexual encounters." They favour long-term relationships but are "not easily satisfied by their long-term partners and are especially motivated to become acquainted with other, presumably more desirable, men." Dr. Quirk, Associate Professor at James Cook University, said that, because of these traits, high-oestradiol women "may also be the sort of women that other women don't like too much".[16]

quaestorchickpea's picture
quaestorchickpea
Joined:
May. 12, 2010 7:02 pm

I suppose one could take the low-road (and by low I mean low-browed) and mention Indira Gandhi's war with Pakistan or Golda Meir's war with Egypt or Catherine the Great's war with Turkey and Sweden or Queen Victoria's war with China or Queen Elizabeth I's war with Spain or Sammuramat's war against the Mesopotamians or Cleopatra's war against Rome or Joan d'Arc's war against the English or Isabella I of Castile's war against Grenada or Amina's defeat of the Hausa or Mbande Nzinga' defeat of the Matamba, or even, as Sue coquettishly admits, Thatcher's war with Argentina.

Why muster facts, however, when simple, off-the-cuff, clichés do the trick?

In point of fact, many of the greatest minds in history going back at least to Thucydides have tired to explain why people fight wars, with little if any agreement among them. Thom Hatrmann is hardly cut from the same cloth as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Kant, Marx, or Wilson.

I'll take my on-air retraction now, Thom.

quaestorchickpea's picture
quaestorchickpea
Joined:
May. 12, 2010 7:02 pm

Sue N- One of things that comes up for me is when we here how women have been left out of the risk taking world of the capitialst and the seeming loss of potential glory and power, is there not a problem with such a model. The withold from power is significant, but I think we need to look at the deeper questions on the issue. It seems to often that the movement to have women succeced has perhaps corrupted them more than it has liberated them. Can this argument be used by sexist male simply wishing to hold power? Sure, but sometimes I think the women economic power movement has lead the group in general away from tactics which could bring about a higher sense of egalitarianism.

the other part I have trouble wth is how to differntiate male protectiveness of females versus a condenscending attitude for women as weaker and less able persons. I remember in a sociology class we used the example of men who open doors for women a genuine desire to make things easier for them, or was it a more covert patroninzing strategm. If you have a way to detect the difference I will be quite impressed

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Now think back to high school, when the main activity, besides trying to fake learning algebra, was mostly an elaborate mating dance. And who did the girls go for? The peace-loving, low-testosterone, males? Noooo. It was the star athlete.

Generalization

Anyway... ...not to put a thorn in your thoughts but, I was always attracted to the peace-loving, kind-hearted sensitive "artsy" types.

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

mattnapa,

Why does it have to revolve around capitalism? Why does the preconceived notion of a dominate woman immediately bring to mind a feminist in a power suit keeping up with the big boys in the corporate arena?

I don't know... ...that notion is not my idea of true feminine strength. I mean - sure intellectual equality is a very good thing. However, women are still seen as the physically weaker sex. And as much as I hate to admit it - that's the part that will always put women in their place.

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Scientists have identified the Marilyn Monroehormone that is linked to an hour-glass body shape in women, and also an increased desire to trade-up to new men.

Chicken or the egg - in my not so humble opinion.

I wonder if the "studies" these scientists conducted included Marilyn Monroe's low self esteem and constant need for undivided attention and approval. The funny thing about relationships is - after the first 2 to 3 years the superficial flirtatious and lusty part wanes and the real relationship begins. Those who have an addiction to the early superficial flirtatious and lusty stage of a relationship will flit from one relationship to another.

I find it funny this is presented the way it is... ...as if it is only women who engage in such behavior. I'd be willing to bet a beer and a burger if one were to observe attractive, (yet emotionally insecure/immature "compensatory"), men they would find these men are just as likely to leave one spouse to "trade up" to a younger, more attractive, and/or more successful new spouse. Hence the idea of the "First Wives Club".

Anyway... ...spare me the Wiki BS. Because that's all it is - BS.

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Why does it have to revolve around capitalism? Why does the preconceived notion of a dominate woman immediately bring to mind a feminist in a power suit keeping up with the big boys in the corporate arena?

It does not have to. That seemed to be what Sue was getting at, and it is often a focal point of the conversations

I don't know... ...that notion is not my idea of true feminine strength. I mean - sure intellectual equality is a very good thing. However, women are still seen as the physically weaker sex. And as much as I hate to admit it - that's the part that will always put women in their place.

I Aam not sure if this relates, but Thom once mentioned that in violent societies women seek very mach violent men as protectors. This of course can unleash a bit of a vicous cycle. I know for certain of us men it has been difficult to hear about women wanting sensitive men, but that idea for many never seemd to come into actual existence

[/quote]

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote bonnie:
Now think back to high school, when the main activity, besides trying to fake learning algebra, was mostly an elaborate mating dance. And who did the girls go for? The peace-loving, low-testosterone, males? Noooo. It was the star athlete.

Generalization

Anyway... ...not to put a thorn in your thoughts but, I was always attracted to the peace-loving, kind-hearted sensitive "artsy" types.

Of course it's a generalization, but that's the point actually. Evolutionary pressures are all about generalizations.

Most guys eventually mate and pass on their genes regardless of their testosterone level (within reasonable limits). But the high-T males, on average, are going to be seen as more desirable and will have more mating opportunities. They're also more likely to just take what they want (rape and pillage).

I believe it's also been shown that there's a difference between the kind of man a woman wants to marry and the kind she wants to bed, again, on average. And quite a few end up marrying the first and cheating with the second.

It's wonderful that you, bonnie, preferred the sensitive, artsy types. I bet you also had less competition in your romantic exploits compared to the girls going after the athletes and the bad boys. Again, on average.

BadLiberal's picture
BadLiberal
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

There is roid rage from overdose of steroids, but also

why-soldiers-get-a-kick-out-of-killing

Several years ago, geneticists at Victoria University in New Zealand linked violent male aggression to a variant of a gene that encodes for the enzyme monoamine oxidase A, which regulates the function of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin. According to the researchers, the so-called "warrior gene" is carried by 56 percent of Maori men, who are renowned for being "fearless warriors," and only 34 percent of Caucasian males.

But studies of World War II veterans suggest that very few men are innately bellicose. The psychiatrists Roy Swank and Walter Marchand found that 98 percent of soldiers who endured 60 days of continuous combat suffered psychiatric symptoms, either temporary or permanent. The two out of 100 soldiers who seemed unscathed by prolonged combat displayed "aggressive psychopathic personalities," the psychiatrists reported. In other words, combat didn't drive these men crazy because they were crazy to begin with.

Surveys of WWII infantrymen carried out by U.S. Army Brig. Gen. S.L.A. Marshall found that only 15 to 20 percent had fired their weapons in combat, even when ordered to do so. Marshall concluded that most soldiers avoid firing at the enemy because they fear killing as well as being killed. "The average and healthy individual," Marshall contended in his postwar book Men Against Fire, "has such an inner and usually unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility…At the vital point he becomes a conscientious objector."

Critics have challenged Marshall's claims, but the U.S. military took them so seriously that it revamped its training to boost firing rates in subsequent wars, according to Dave Grossman, a former U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and professor of psychology at West Point. In his 1995 book On Killing, Grossman argues that Marshall's results have been corroborated by reports from World War I, the American Civil War, the Napoleonic wars and other conflicts. "The singular lack of enthusiasm for killing one's fellow man has existed throughout military history," Grossman asserts.

The reluctance of ordinary men to kill can be overcome by intensified training, direct commands from officers, long-range weapons and propaganda that glorifies the soldier's cause and dehumanizes the enemy. "With the proper conditioning and the proper circumstances, it appears that almost anyone can and will kill," Grossman writes. Many soldiers who kill enemies in battle are initially exhilarated, Grossman says, but later they often feel profound revulsion and remorse, which may transmute into post-traumatic stress disorder and other ailments. Indeed, Grossman believes that the troubles experienced by many combat veterans are evidence of a "powerful, innate human resistance toward killing one's own species."

In other words, the Schrumpf effect is usually a product less of nature than of nurture—although "nurture" is an odd term for training that turns ordinary young men into enthusiastic killers.

Previous paragraph to this also had bit about how the men enjoyed it especially if there was no risk to themselves. Like signing the execution orders as governor, without reading the appeal documents.

Empathy does exist, even in the presence of testosterone, and feminization of society is a nonsensical bs marketing ploy.

Women do marry a provider and then mate separately with a better looker to produce offspring of choice. There are defender sperm and attacker sperm, and the seed of choice can be introduced at an opportune time to increase likelihood of that father succeeding, but never having to support, or even acknowledge parentage.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Mattnapa, to be honest, I have not followed the feminist movement at all, preferring to find my own solutions. I got into computing when there were very few women involved in it (this in spite of the first programmer, Ada Lovelace, being a woman). When I did my Masters degree in Microprocessor Engineering and Digital Electronics, I was the only woman out of around a hundred students taking masters degrees in that or related subjects. When my boss was replaced by an out and out misogynist whose first action was to take virtually all my work away from me and give it to my male colleague, I resigned and got a better job. But succeeding in a man's world and breaking through the glass ceiling required qualities I did not have, and I saw less able men promoted above me time after time. So my career was never as successful as I would have liked. Hopefully it gets easier generation by generation; there are a lot more women in computing now, for example. Just for women to try and compete in a man's world involves risk, as you have greater chance of failure, and you are are reducing your chances of settling down to a more traditional "feminine" role.

On the opening doors question, there have been a few true "gentlemen", but mostly I can't tell why they do it, and in some cases it really annoys me. I'd much rather both sexes held doors open for people who clearly need it, such as those carrying things using both hands.

SueN's picture
SueN
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I guess I must have been an Amazon in a former life. I've never repressed or deigned the fact I am an aggressive female. And the idea of "choosing" a male for protection is pretty funny to me.

Anyway, evolutionary mating theories aside - right or wrong, I have always associated high testosterone males with the generalized concept of the "big DUMB jock". I have NEVER found this attractive.

I have always been attracted to intelligent, intuitive, inquisitive/creative types. A 'brute" may be able to hunt down and kill a bear with his bare hands... ...but an intelligent, intuitive, inquisitive/creative type most likely will build a better bear trap.

I guess what I am trying to say is, "In my opinion, brute force isn't sexy. It's actually a put-off. Intelligence, creativity and ingenuity are by far more attractive traits in a man.

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote BadLiberal:

I've been married for 25 years and I have two daughters. I can attest to the fact that estrogen is indeed a highly toxic substance.

I feel ya, but don't underestimate testosterone. It packs a pretty toxic punch, too

Poor Richard's picture
Poor Richard
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Feminist Promise

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote thomhartmann:

The United Kingdom, with a virtually 100% male House of Lords and House of Commons during Maggie Thatcher's PM-icy is hardly a "female run goverment."

The only examples you'll be able to find are Iceland in the last centuries (I think) and aboriginal people (Iroquois) which were *not* warlike...

I stand by my assertion that testosterone - not religion (Mahr) nor anything else - is responsible for most of the violence (check our prison populations) and large-scale violence (wars) in the world...

Got any proof to back that up, or are you just giving us a truism from your gut?

Fact, a higher percentage of women serving in the US Senate and House of Representatives have voted for military action than men in the last 6 years.

Percentage wise.

KevinConner's picture
KevinConner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

/boys-gone-wild-

fits in to the same frame of mind as this thread, [I thought the Feminist Promise did, too but the post was redacted..that black block above was for that]

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'll just throw this one in. Years ago when they were trying to pass ther partial birth abortion legislation, we were always told that the anti-choice folks were adding provisinos which endanger the life of the women. I was a little shocked at this to say the least. but when you dug in further it turned out that it endangered the "mental health" of the women involved. To me this was a simple betrayal of honesty. How abortion effects women's lives is extremely important, but when we start stealing language in their defense, I think things have gone to far

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

matt I don't know what you're trying to say but a lot of anti-abortion activists and proposals want to outlaw late term abortions when the woman's health is in jeopardy, as well as any abortion when there's a non-certain but definite risk of death or injury if the pregnancy is allowed to continue.

That counts.

KevinConner's picture
KevinConner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

That is what makes differentiating between the two all the more important. Honest language is a must

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Robert Graves wrote a two volume set called The Greek Myths, of which each chapter was divided into two parts, the retelling of each myth, and the anthropological material existing that had bearing on the story. He talks about nine-tenths of Greek prehistory as being matriarchal, and the power of generation made women magical, until the connection with coitus was discovered. Women were supposedly impregnated by eating beans (no kidding!); mares were impregnated by the north wind.

I also saw an interesting show on public TV about the overthrow of matriarchal Greek prehistory, talking about the creation and imposition of patriarchal power with the figure of Athena springing from Zeus's brow, without benefit of womb, and how this was propaganda to disenfranchise femininity from her rightful demesne.

Power was taken by force, in this theory.

If we look at Jane Goodall's chimps at Gombe, there was always an alpha male, but grandmother Flo remained a moral force to her end of days.

A lot of speculation, a shortage of traction

ProudPrimate's picture
ProudPrimate
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

From a practical perspective matriarchal lineage makes a lot more sense, since a mother can always be certain that a particular child is her genetic offspring. Historically, the same could not be said for the father.

Patriarchal lineage practically required that women be reduced to the status of chattel in order for the man to have any assurance of genetic parentage. Even so, cuckolding has been very common.

With modern DNA techniques men are finally on an even footing with the women in that regard. Maybe we can finally get over this and get on with being cooperative, equal, parents.

Now if we can figure out what to do about last names for children we'll have it whipped.

BadLiberal's picture
BadLiberal
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Description of Appeal to a False Belief. In the world of logic discourse , I am afraid that there is a factor of wishful thinking in Thoms' assertions of the "evil Male" Paradigm. It in itself is a fallacy. In order to understand a fallacy we must find the essence of the argument.

Thom's, belief in the desirous wonder of a women ruled society is a false semanticist or better a linguist trick.

To understand this fallacy we must merely apply the formula (which btw has to have no basis in fact).

1.I wish that X were true, therefore X is true. Or Wishful Thinking.

2.I wish that X were false, therefore X is false. Also Wishful Thinking.

Or 1.I wish a successful world run by women is true, therefore a world run by women would be successful Wishful thinking

2.I wish there was not an evil world run by testosterone , therefore testosterone run worlds are evil Also wishful thinking. This reasoning is false because the essence of the belief has no bearing if the premises is true or not. For example, if one was to posit "If three toed green kitties eat acorns, then I would be miserable, so they must exist" You may be miserable, but it doesn't make three toes acorn eating green kitties exist!.

The premise that a “wonderful world run by women“ would be great doesn't make its nature any less fallacious either. Beside that fact that Thoms very position is sexist and categorizes us into the very core of Hegelian Dialects “kill zone”, we must break down this position by it's very core.

Remember if the premises is false, the conclusion , even if logical is also false. So, in keeping, one might ask in retort, please identify one successful nation run by women.

It doesn't happen. If history is any indicator, no nation (I will exclude tribes) has existed or subsisted run by women. Why is that? If we look at the traditional female/male response we find women attracted to and mating with the aggressive styled, successful (not necessarily murderous as seems to be tossed into the discussion) males. Even as I have studied Lesbian relationships and some male homosexual relationships, there is typically if not always a "male patterned" leader. It is not theoretical, it is natural and survivalist designed.. Women are generally attracted physiologically to assertive “alpha “ type males. They may pay lip service to what they claim they desire (emotionally available, sensitive, empathetic and empathic), but they are attracted to and breed with assertive, successful men.

Men who are assertive and dominant convey to women that they can be protected and provided for by these men. We may wish to intellectually fight these patterns, (as well as we can try to hold our breath) but the patterns still repeat themselves again and again. Google it, ask your friends, the most popular type of men are the “bad boys”. They present adventure and passion. It may not be on the battlefield of war, but on the field of play called business or arts. Winning men get to breed and thus their society flourishes.

Just look at animals, as a whole it is the dominant males who win, protect and get to breed. They are the ones called to provide for and if necessary defend the families. Even in lions, where there is little doubt that the women run the “family units” the male is a dominant survivalist need for the pride.

In an article “Two elephants in a room of feminism” http://stagetwo.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/the-two-elephants-in-the-room-o... the author states

“ While subtle and complex biases against women exist, discrimination does not fully explain the dominance of men in many fields. The major reason is something so old and familiar that we can’t see it: in the absence of extraordinary achievement, a man is valued less than a woman (reverse sexism). Men are therefore under greater pressure to reach extraordinary levels of cultural achievement.

The ultimate cause of this (glossing over a network of proximate causes) is that women bear children. Men are forever compensating for their comparably tiny contribution to the reproduction of the species. Consider that you could kill 90% of all men at a negligible cost with respect to the species’ ability to reproduce, while killing women will decimate the following generation proportionally. This is why every boy, despite being taught that men and women are of equal value, still today grows up understanding that, if worst comes to worst, he will be expected to volunteer to sacrifice himself to save a woman – a deep hypocrisy.

This, in no uncertain terms, delivers the inevitable message that women are needed more. On average, women are more valued, more protected, and more desired. And men kill themselves to compensate, often by direct physical risk taking, and even more often by pushing themselves to succeed unhealthily (leading to lower life expectancy). Men also “gain” years that women spend on pregnancy and child care – to compulsively pursue their compensatory cultural ambitions.

For men, cultural achievement is a necessity, the key to being valued, desired, and loved, and thus to personal happiness. For women it is a choice. The alternative choice for women is to be valued, desired, and loved in a more traditional female role. Men do not de facto have this choice to the same degree (rare exceptions notwithstanding). “Get rich or die trying” is one expression of this male predicament. But the phenomenon is present in different variants across subcultures and very tangible in each of our own lives.

Those men who fail in the game of extraordinary achievement, go on to ‘dominate’ all the dirtiest and most hazardous occupations, where women are also underrepresented. Moreover, the supposedly enviable leadership positions tend to be stressful and burdened with responsibility. Given a choice of being valued and loved by a different route, many men as well as women would choose that – only there’s no equality of those alternative choices.

The major pressure factor on men is female sexual preference. And there may not be any remedy. There’s little we can do about either the female preference for successful males or the male preference for beautiful females. Note the irony: Men dominate because women prefer men who dominate.”

It is because of this , that we do not see successful women run nations. The model doesn't work and some might say by the god/ess natural design. Men suffer tremendously under this burden, but are “wired “ to this paradigm. We must succeed to attract,and any simple overhearing of the derision often applied to men as “losers or wimps” is a mere reflection of this in women. If one wishes to break free of the reign of “male terrorism” then rebuke the natural attractive and breeding requirements in women. Men don't want to die or expire due to overwork. We all want to live.

When women find attractive and will mate with the “losers, geeks, nerds and wimps: then society will change. But with caution lets ask what type of world then will we create. Aggressiveness in the “human animal “ is intrinsic and shy of Sam Colt making all people equal, the need for the aggressive “alpha” male will continue to persist and be necessary to protect and self sacrifice for the tribe, clan or nation. Would we want our marines to be passive, flaccid and non aggressive? Would we send them to do our military bidding? Of course not. How about the police? Our first responders? Never!

Until we find a way to undo the genetic wiring of our very God/ess given being the classic “evil” testosterone male, aggressive, assertive and willing to die to protect his mates will exist and be valued with his countries or tribes successful and able to write a history to be recorded for posterity. It is not Chauvinism it is God/ess given and like most things natural a wonderful part of life and given a broader overview than our selfish nature often allows we can see Providences hand in a larger pattern which no less than oil drilling in deep waters, when we mess with success..un-success happens.

So if you want a world free of testosterone you are welcome to it, but for the rest of the surviving breeding species , they will continue to survive and the illogical call to remove the male form will vanish like a whistle in a thunderstorm. .

BillyJ
Joined:
May. 27, 2010 1:22 am
Quote polycarp2:

The U.S. has been at war in one way or another during every presidency of my rather long lifetime. I can't say that is so for any other country. Maybe I overlooked one.

Yes you did. America was at peace under President Jimmy Carter. Gas was 50 cents a gallon.

kwikfix
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 1:51 pm
Quote BadLiberal:

Darwinian natural selection is often characterized in short hand as "survival of the fittest". That's only partly true. Survival is obviously a prerequisite, at least long enough to mate. But the real driver of evolutionary change is "propogation of the sexiest". That's how you get things like the outrageous tail feathers on the male peacock. The guy is seriously handicapped when it comes to escaping from predators but he gets enough action before he's lunch to ensure the propogation of that trait.

Bryan Sykes wrote a book, "Adam's Curse", in which he briefly talks about male aggression, as well as the dominance of men in positions of power, having all the hallmarks of sexual selection run amok.

Quote bonnie:Anyway, evolutionary mating theories aside - right or wrong, I have always associated high testosterone males with the generalized concept of the "big DUMB jock". I have NEVER found this attractive.

And you are not alone in that. But it's not about individual preference, it's about the general trend. Also, sexual selection would have been at work over the whole course of human existence, not just this little sliver of modernity. Sadly as well, the woman's preference didn't necessarily matter in much of human history. It's worth noting that Genghis Khan's Y chromosome is present in about 8% of all men living in the area of the former Mongol empire, which is about 0.5% of the world's population descended from just one very violent man. Violence and social position have clearly led to reproductive success throughout much of history.

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 11:26 am

Billy J- The Hegelian dialectic kill zone is certainly memorable. But overall I am not in favor for what seems like a staus quo male dominated society you seem to be arguing for. Nor am I for what many feminist constructions offer. I think masculinity just needs to rexamine what it is all about. In my opinion it is not about intimidating women, or children for that matter, but it is instead about self control and complementing the other sex. Certainly the percentage of male domestic abuse does not any sense equate with masculinity in my book. And while I am not suggesting this is your assertion, I did not hear a great deal to renounce some of the unhealthier aspects of male superiority.

I guess I am old fashioned in believing trditional societies had it right when the took the boys away from the women at around 13 and took them away to learn the lessons of what it was to be a man. This system can be seen as anti-female, but I do not believe that was necessarily the intent. Further the end result ended up in a masculinity which seemed more in harmony with the female's. Maybe this overly romanticized and more traditional socieities had gender problems than I realize, but I would still believe that a culture should have a well thought out plan on some process to inculturate positive gender values on the young males within the culture. Perhaps I am sexist in the belief that that is best done by a group of men when boys reach puberty.

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

We live in “interesting times” to be sure.

In the present society, I do not believe it is merely the young men who need positive gender identities, but women as well.

As a point of discussion , it is probably as the selectors of the mating stock that women themselves should be teaching young women about modesty, chastity and proper mating selection. Is it any wonder that young men , seeing women scantily clad and gyrating as in a pole dance, consider them merely as sex objects?

Has the rise of birth control rather than being freeing to women , truly just made them more a slave than before?
As any objectified thing, is not person hood and personality devalued at the expense of the objectification?

I wonder as I was told once that truly it is not a patriarchy but rather a matriarchy that rules the earth. True a select few men serve as the "useful idiots" of the agendas, but as a whole it is women who control most of the worlds wealth,

By 2010, women are expected to control 60 percent of all wealth in the world’s richest country, according to a study from Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, American women are better educated and enjoying more successful careers than ever, while their male compatriots lag behind.
http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/demographic_change/gender_d...

Maybe this ruling matriarchy wants women to be devalued and objectified, as it makes their social control more ubiquitous and total. Just a conspiratorial drift here...!! :)

But with women controlling more and more of the worlds wealth, it only makes sense for men to truly learn to coexist with women in a shared manner. If only for our survival! Maybe it is not in the conquest on the battlefields that then next wars will be won, but in the bedrooms.

If only wishful thinking, it is a wonderful thought. I guess that someday if we can integrate our heads back into our bodies, maybe this utopian ideal will become real. Maybe like some have proposed , our intellect only rests on the reptilian core of our brain stem, and the core controls even the most eloquent expressions of the higher self.

Maybe,maybe, maybe...

or as it was once said...

“Wishes are for fishes! And fishes are beautiful to watch swimming”

BillyJ
Joined:
May. 27, 2010 1:22 am

Biily J- Seems I did not understand your position well. I find the point about the sexualized persona of women in this culture is interesting. Thom seems pretty absolute in claiming pornography is misogyny, but at the same time muslim societies which require extreme modesty for women are seen as misogynistic by him as well. I think an argument can be made that the insistence for modest dress for women in public is protective of womens concerns. It may actually be helpful for both sexes to turn down sexuality in the public place. Whether there is a line somewhere on the correct amount of public sexuality, I do not know. And of course there are many other cultural inputs about the nature of sexual presentation, so I do not claim that dress is necessarily primary. But the topic seems to be usually approached in a rather oblique manner.

I heard the quote recently that american consumerism is similar to life at an amusent park, and I think the hyper-sexualization of society is a part of that. I do not really have any answers here, but it does seem like significant societeal problems are at play

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
... since a mother can always be certain that a particular child is her genetic offspring. Historically, the same could not be said for the father.

Interesting thought. And while this may seem like a rambling tangent - I would like to take it one step further.

If one looks at Harlow's experiments with maternal privation/deprivation the infant monkeys were seriously affected by a lack of maternal nurturing and teaching/coaching.

I would be interested to know if anyone has ever done any experiments in paternal privation/deprivation in infant monkeys......or, (more preciously), in human children.

I once heard a psychologist make an interesting comparison between Walt Disney and Adolph Hitler. Both were very artist as young boys. Both wanted to be artists in their adult lives. And both came from highly abusive homes. Disney had a very abusive father and Hitler had a very abusive step-father.

If I remember correctly, the psychologist pointed out Disney's mother stood her ground as best she could and encouraged her son's creativity and artistic development while Hitler's mother was passive/submissive and repeatedly sided with the step-father.

One grew up to use his creative and intuitive genius to entertain and inspire the creative imagination in all of us. The other grew up to loath entire groups/cultures an used his creative and intuitive genius to manipulate an entire country to hate and loath entire groups/cultures the way Hiltler did..

Anyway... ...I could be wrong with my recall. It's been awhile.

But, it doesn't change my primary thought - which is... ...if the roll of maternal bonding/nurturing could very well be the most influential aspect of early emotional, psychological and/or intellectual development - why would anyone question the dominate role females play in the development and cultivation of following generations/civilizations?

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Why the Web of Life is Dying...

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system