Thom is a sexist pig?

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

95 posts / 0 new

Thom,

Try something for me. State that: "Estrogen is the most dangerous drug in the world!" on-air for the next three shows and let the listners know how the response turns out.

Indeed, try consistently flipping gender identifiers in your on-air comments for a while and make sure you are entirely comfortable with your attitudes. I'm not. Remember, feminism is, by definition, sexism.

An ex-listener

j.enright's picture
j.enright
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

Feminism is about females have opportunities and rights equal to males and women not being punished for being female. Of course there some individuals which corrupt feminism to sexism, but then again most people who are not feminists are also sexist as they believe that male is superior to female.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote j.enright:

Remember, feminism is, by definition, sexism

Why would that bother a conservative?

kwikfix
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 12:51 pm

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.

BadLiberal's picture
BadLiberal
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Isms are by definition isms. Authentic discussion of race or gender issues is almost assured to generate ex[ression of race or gender based views beliefs etc. This can lead to solipsism (it's all racist/sexist) or soul-searching (am I racist/sexist).

Women's rights have come a long way in the US in the last century and the last few decades. I'm with Thom about testosterone (though I wouldn't call it a drug) -- I dont think the female humans will EVER catch up to the murders, violence and wars done by male humans.(period). Yup, yup another sexist remark.

In no way does the simple recognition of widespread reality using general terms make one a pig.

- pun left once discovered.(period). And if it matters to you: Yes I am a male (and that was a sexist thought/question too).

LeMoyne's picture
LeMoyne
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Please identify one nation that is run by women instead of men and has the levels of violence and war that male/testosterone nations have and I'll gladly correct myself on the air.

Until then, respectfully, I stand behind the statement that testosterone is the most dangerous drug in the world. (Since there are no such countries, how about we just look at who gets locked up for violent crimes?)

Thom

thomhartmann's picture
thomhartmann
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Well, Thom, Maggie Thatcher's UK wasn't particularly pacifist as I recall.

My comment about toxic estrogen was only partly tongue-in-cheek. I got first hand accounts of how girls treat each other when my oldest was in school. Female aggression has less of a tendency to get physical; but they can be devastatingly cruel (sexist stereotype: "catty", "bitchy") to each other. And we've had fairly recent examples in the news of the tragic results of this kind of aggression resulting in suicides. Boys have more of a tendency to just get in a fist-fight and get it out of their system. I would be curious to know how the levels of violence compare between inmates in male and female prisons.

I think the reality is that men and women need each other to moderate the worst impulses of both as well as accentuate the best qualties of each (not to mention other pleasant reasons). Testosterone can give a man a certain kind of drive to DO things; whereas the the wife will often look at that and be able to say that maybe that thing shouldn't be done, to pull him back a bit.

I don't think an all female government would really be any better than an all male government. Such governments may, if you could have a large enough sample, be demonstrably less apt to go to war. But the aggressive impulse, like any human characteristic, will be expressed in men and women as overlapping normal curves rather than binary separations. IOW, there are plenty of aggressive women and plenty of non-aggressive men. It's just that on average men will be more aggressive than women. The same group of women that have the drive for leadership, by definition, would be the group of women with the drive for aggression. I'm confident that a President Hillary Clinton would have been perfectly able and willing to order troops into battle.

Saying testosterone is the most dangerous drug in the world bespeaks a kind of self-loathing. Without your testosterone you wouldn't be the successful businessman that you are. You've channelled that energy along positive lines and I salute you. Perhaps Louise pulled you back from the brink now and then? Would either of you have the success you enjoy without the other? Aren't you a good team with your testosterone and estrogen mix?

BadLiberal's picture
BadLiberal
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I am NO fan of Maggie Thatcher. While she was prime minister, she defended the Falkland Islands against invasion from Argentina (they were definitely British, though whether they ought to have been is another question which should have been solved diplomatically long before). The war lasted a couple of months. She allowed American F-111s to use RAF bases for the bombing of Libya. She was in favour of G H W Bush driving Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and joined the international coalition. She supported Pinochet. But at least she did not invade another country. But at least she did not initiate any wars or invasions that I recall.

Having been to an all girls boarding school, I agree that female cruelty tends to be more psychological than physically violent.

And having worked in several large organizations, I have observed that many of the women who have succeeded have had to do so by outdoing the males at their own game, rather than using feminine strengths.

There are also a few women who are driven by their own PMS hormones to do nasty things, but fortunately they are a minority.

But on the whole, I agree with Thom.

SueN's picture
SueN
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote j.enright: Remember, feminism is, by definition, sexism

Well, not really true. The isms are about someone with institutional power, oppressing a group with less power. Men have the institutional power and therefore, by definition, feminism is not sexism. Unless, of course, women gain institutional power over men, which isn't even close to happening.

A common mistake people make is to think isms are just about hating a group of people. What those people are actually thinking of, is being prejudice. Feminism is often prejudice against men (not always though), but since women don't have the institutional power, that prejudice is harmless.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

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...

thomhartmann's picture
thomhartmann
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Iroquois Wars

quaestorchickpea's picture
quaestorchickpea
Joined:
May. 12, 2010 6:02 pm

The Iriquois invented LaCrosse to work out conflict without war - there's a famous painting of this in Thom's book Threshold.

louisehartmann's picture
louisehartmann
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

In response to common man jason, just because a minority may be assigned as oppresed does not mean any ideology taken up by such a group is inherently non-sexist. While I would obviously not agree with the original charge here, I think the left often fails to take up some of the subtleties of feminism, and simply looks upon the subject of the critique of feminism with hostility. Granted an oppressed group may need certain additional tolerances or laws which allow them to return to the larger society in a way that grants them their place on the level playing field, as in affirmative action. However such a situation really has no bearing on whether certain motives and actions can be judged to be sexist or not.

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I disagree with Thom Hartmann on several issues but a "sexist pig" he is not. In all things I try to look at the intent of the person involved. Thom's "intent" in almost all things is for the betterment of We The People, whether I agree with him or not.

Poo tee weet's picture
Poo tee weet
Joined:
May. 7, 2010 4:17 pm

There are chromosomally aberrant males who are XYY instead of XY (the 'Y' being the male chromosome--females are XX--arguably more 'balanced'..). There are inordinately more XYY males in prisons for violent crimes than there are XYY males in the population at large. That does give credence to Thom's claim that 'testosterone' is the culprit--and, yes, the XYY males have higher levels of testosterone.

Do they have bigger......?.....:)......maybe they just carry bigger guns...:).

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

When I was in university, I had an international relations class, and one of the topics we discussed was war, weapons, and sexual symbolism.

It followed much of what Thom is saying here. That male dominated societies tend to be more violent and prone to starting wars with others. There also was an article we had to read (I wish I still had it) about the phallic shape of missiles, and the psychological nature of their penetration into mother earth. I wish I could remember the name of my professor for this class, I do recall he was a man.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

When I was in university, I had an international relations class, and one of the topics we discussed was war, weapons, and sexual symbolism.

It followed much of what Thom is saying here. That male dominated societies tend to be more violent and prone to starting wars with others. There also was an article we had to read (I wish I still had it) about the phallic shape of missiles, and the psychological nature of their penetration into mother earth. I wish I could remember the name of my professor for this class, I do recall he was a man.

Oh please.

Ever hear of aerodynamics? What are missles supposed to do besides penetrate what they're aimed at, hover around and look scary? I think you fantisize a bit too much.

If warfare was all about sexual fantasies, all of the Generals would have gone blind by now.

Women... passive? Yikes!! Ya'll ain't seen my wife PMS'ing.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am

I don't think we can draw a simple line between testosterone and violence. There is certainly a correlation between testosterone and violence, but causation is far from certain. Do high testosterone levels cause violence, or do acts of violence raise testosterone levels?

From Scientific American, Strange but True: Testosterone Alone Does Not Cause Violence

Arguably, the weak correlation between testosterone and violence gives us reason to be optimistic about the human race: Whereas other animals battle over mates as a direct result of their seasonal fluctuations in testosterone and other hormones, humans have discovered other ways to establish pecking orders. Which isn't to say that we can't rapidly adapt to the modern-day manifestations of our violent past: McAndrews's work demonstrated that one surefire way to raise a man's testosterone level is to allow him to handle a gun.
reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 10:26 am

If warfare was all about sexual fantasies, all of the Generals would have gone blind by now.

?....OK, slabmaster, I'm going to take the bait. What do you mean that the 'Generals would have gone blind by now'? They aren't fighting these wars by themselves....:)......

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The absence of data of women that have completely ran a society not being warlike doesn't say much. Few such governments have existed, and not of sufficient power to bring about war. I'm not saying Thom's hypothesis is wrong, I'm just saying there doesn't seem to be adequate data supporting it. I suppose I could also say there has never been a patriarch society that hasn't gone to war, but I would be pulling that statistic from my butt. Besides, societies that have forsaken going to war don't seem to last long enough to be remembered.

Besides, isn't Testosterone a hormone and not a drug?

N

Maxrot's picture
Maxrot
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

It seems like we progressives and the middle class in general are fighting a Big Scary Monster... and that monster feeds on money and power. As progrssives, we need to pick our battles and concentrate our efforts on issues that will have maximum impact. I'm proposing that our biggest problem is corporate money influence over political legislation. We need to cut off the monster's food supply.

Thom, can you articulate a plan?

DeanRittenhouse's picture
DeanRittenhouse
Joined:
May. 20, 2010 8:30 am

Would sororities count as female run societies in this instance? I mean hey, has Tri-Delta taken us to war as often as members of skull & bones?

nathnlee's picture
nathnlee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

How about Themyscira, formerly call Paradise Island? It's run by some very tough, battle ready Amazons. Have you ever seen Wonder Woman kick butt? Wham! Pow! Biff!

Jgmdesign's picture
Jgmdesign
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Ask any TRANSGENDERED person who is on hormone therapy, Testosterone is a very powerful drug that causes one to be agressive, Estrogen has a calming effect.

gypsylauren's picture
gypsylauren
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I'm kinda on-board with Bad Liberal (post #6) here - Just as Capitalism itself is not necessarily evil, but unrestrained Capitalism can become so (witness our current financial crisis), perhaps the most dangerous SUBSTANCE (yes, Maxnels (#19) - it's not a drug - although I think that supplements are available) in the world is Testosterone without the restraint provided by an Estrogen-bearing partner.

I've been married for nearly 34 years now, to the same woman, and I can't count the times that she's stopped me form doing something that, in retrospect, would've been disasterously stupid. Of courese, I've pulled her back from the brink a time or two, also.

mstaggerlee's picture
mstaggerlee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

To the idea that feminism is sexism, no. Several have made the correct response about the relationship of prejudice to power and the difference between being able to enforce a bias and being its victim. The development of "black pride" was necessary because of the insult of White Racism. I have found black people generally open and ready to embrace a real human being with melanin deficiency who was European-American instead of White. I don't blame those who would rather not have to discern the difference and just keep away from light skinned folk.

This is what the "reverse racism" whiners never understand. All those pathetic White Boys lecturing Sotomayor on racism. All that crap about "affirmative action" because their multi-century entitlement was being threatened by non-WASPs.

My wife attended a women's college and got a much better undergraduate education than I did at Stanford. Mills graduates women who are leaders in many professional fields, largely because their education is not hampered by the cultural power presumptions of men. They do not learn to defer to the boys. They become leaders rather than vice-presidents and secretaries to the "men." And the whole culture of education comes from a tradition of human service and global awareness while men learn to train for power jobs and careers.

I love powerful women and hate the idea that they think they need to lie to me or manipulate my masculinity to get what they need. Women who dress for men always make us look like the fools we are, and I would rather not be trivialized no matter how true it is. Or because it is so true.

It makes it not sexy, just like the dumb guys in the beer ads. Dress for yourself so I know who you are. That is feminism.

The theme for 21st Century "feminism" ought to be "you've come a long way, Barbie." The hot Muslim babe Miss America in a teeny weeny bikini is not exactly "liberation."

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Remember, feminism is, by definition, sexism.

and Martin Luther King Jr was a racist.

as soon as white men are oppressed, I'll be happy to be a Man-ist

Mananist? Malanist?

DancinDave's picture
DancinDave
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

i'm a big fan of Thom and i consider myself a feminist - and i always cringe when i hear him go off on the testosterone riff.

i think it might be better to emphasize the evils of patriarchy instead. that would target bad behavior instead of singling out a group of humans as being inherently evil or inadequate.

and after all, testosterone will be around forever - but we actually have a chance of abolishing patriarchy.

cgb9001's picture
cgb9001
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

There are estrogen mimicing chemicals in the water supply that the NWO puts there to pacify and pussify us. Like in the UK.

Volitzer's picture
Volitzer
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Thom is right. I'm not some man hater but the cliché of "women create. men destroy" came about for a reason.

Women are always picked on for our monthly cycles and how that hormonal change affects us but what most people don't know is that men also go through hormonal changes. Only instead of it being once a month it is every 24 hours.

I am far from saying men can't make good leaders. Obviously history is rich with a lot of examples of good ones. I am also not saying that women would be incapable of being a bad leader. Individuals are all unique and I don't judge people on gender or race or any other classification. But on a base, general level I would think women would be less likely to jump into wars. That women would be more inclined to find peaceful solutions.

I have always felt that it is due to the fact that women carry the babies inside for 9 months. You spend 9 months growing a life and then the subsequent months feeding and nurturing that life... you're going to be less likely to send it off to war to die. Again, not saying men can't also have that ability. I'm just saying I think it comes more natural in women typically.

Jade's picture
Jade
Joined:
May. 20, 2010 10:40 am

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. That said we never would have progressed to where we are if the progress ball was in the woman's court so to speak.

Of course that being said women keep men from going over the mark and act as a check and balance so when are testosterone based short-sightedness happens there's a saftey mechanism.

However what is at the root of much sexism is when the "other" gender fails to take in what the 1st person gender is going through and what they have to deal with.

Volitzer's picture
Volitzer
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote gypsylauren:

Ask any TRANSGENDERED person who is on hormone therapy, Testosterone is a very powerful drug that causes one to be agressive, Estrogen has a calming effect.

The big question is whether the higher testosterone levels in men translates to an increase in political aggression. For a complex number of factors, it might be true that a nation primarily run by women would be more peaceful. I don't think we have enough data to really know, though it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. But Thom is asserting that testosterone is a primary cause, and that certainly doesn't seem to be true. However, it doesn't make him sexist to think it. There may well be biological factors involved. I just dispute we can readily reduce it to testosterone.

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 10:26 am

Like politics was one of the break-up points between me and my ex. No matter what I did I could never get her to understand how fractional reserve banking is destroying the economy. The funny thing is that she works for a bank. This would always lead to arguments when she wondered why my hours were cut or why no other job has called or why she got overtime working for a "bank" and the rest of the economy was shutting down.

Very frustrating indeed !!!!!!!!!

Volitzer's picture
Volitzer
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Without testosterone the human race would not have made it out of the stone age. Hell, we would not have made it TO the stone age. All human life would have died off if it were not for this naturally occurring hormone. It may be a fun and inflammatory statement to make, but it's disingenuous at best. Won't you admit that Thom?

Attikai's picture
Attikai
Joined:
May. 20, 2010 8:46 am

Of course this doesn't help either...

Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

The sad thing is that there are many women 21-50 who are just as politically naive.

Volitzer's picture
Volitzer
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Thomm is definitely right. Just look at the prisons.

However, there are some historical instances of female leaders taking their people to war such as many of the queens of old and others like joan of arc and boudica.

Additionally, we can't ignore the fact that women do commit some violent crimes. This article states that violent crimes by women are increasing in the UK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246802/Record-number-women-arre...

I think the big corporations tampering with our food supply with hormones and estrogen-like soy products could be messing people up as well.

Mr_Dean's picture
Mr_Dean
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:58 am
  • Thom referenced the Iroquois.
  • The Iroquois were a matriarchal society, or a society that is run by women.
  • Women owned all of the property in the long house.
  • They were also in charge of farming.
  • Iroquois men moved into the homes of his wife’s family.

The iroquois weren't known for going to war. Their Constitution pushed war to the background. Women could vote out any leader who violated the Constitution...and quickly did.

While the U.S. adopted some elements of their constitution into its own, the U.S. kept women in the background. They couldn't vote.

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.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I think the comment that testosterone is a dangerous "drug" (actually hormone but psychoactive drugs have their effects by acting on neurotransmitters or hormones) is simply a statement of fact. We can argue that we should be talking about the evils of patriarchal societies, but we must consider the biological context in which patriartchal societies came into existence. It is likely due to the effects of testosterone that males have historically tended to dominate and control women, as well as fight each other.

Regarding the xyy "supermale" thing, researchers are now going back on their earlier claims that these people inordinately wind up in prison, but at the same time, research is finding that adolescent males with higher levels of testosterone are more likely to become violent, so the research picture is confusing. Perhaps having 2 y chromosomes does not elevate testosterone levels after all.

Regarding the "drug" aspect of testosterone, I find it interesting to contrast with Thom's statements at times, that the human race evolved with various drugs. Thus, he says we are adapted to drugs; they are a normal part of the human experience and can benefit us. Obviously, males of our species have evolved with testosterone, but that does not prevent it from being dangerous. I think the same can be said of some drugs. Perhaps they have evolved because it helps propagate the plants which produce the drugs, when people get hooked on the substance and therefore decide to grow the plant. In essence, my argument here is that many drugs are somewhat parasitic in nature. By growing a psychoactive substance, the plant makes humans dependent upon them, benefiting the plant, while perhaps harming the people. Testosterone, on the other hand, benefited males during evolution because it helped them to outcompete other males, but when cooperation becomes more important than competition, as in advanced societies, and overly aggressive people tend to be punished for their misdeeds, the behavioral problems caused by testosterone's outweigh its behavioral benefits. We males still depend on testosterone for sex drive and reproductive purposes of course -- if only we could have that without the aggression or misdirected sex drives.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Well, Thom. You've finally done it. You've made me mad enough to join your charboard, just so I can slap you down.

"Please identify one nation that is run by women instead of men and has the levels of violence and war that male/testosterone nations have and I'll gladly correct myself on the air"

Falsehood. There are simply NO nations, civiliations, or other group run by women. Period.Not one. This is a classic circular logic fallacy. "Nations go to war. Men run nations. Ergo, men cause all wars." Worse, you compound it with a vauge measure. "levels of violence that male nations cause". What is that level? Do you want a ratio of bodycounts per year? Overall body counts? What is this term supposed to mean?

Knowing English history best, I could site rulers like Elizabeth (wars of religion in England, Ireland, Neatherlands, France and Spain) or Victoria (Boer War, Indian Rebellion, Crimean War). as examples, but of course, those weren't waged by those poor women, it was the evil manipulative men who did that. Congradulations, Thom. You've found a unloseable arguement. In other news, gravity pulls downward, and light is brighter then shadow. Not only that, but you've managed to paint these strong females as weak puppets who were utterly manipulated by their masters. Who is the sexist now?

Ultimately, it comes down to fundamental differences in males and females. The thinking nowadays is that females are biologically more standardized and geared to close-intereaction (familial). Males are much more disposeable, prone to risk, and geared to potentially hostile behavior (Inter-group, trans-tribe. Trade, negotiation, and yes, war). If you look at a bell curve of a sampleing of IQ scores, split by gender, you will see that both average out at about the same (100), yet women have a much higher curve. Men have a shallower bell curve, with more outliers. If you take just about any other measureable statistic, you will find the same pattern. There are more men who have gigantism and dwarfism, for example. Mental retardation (and argueably, geniuses) seems to be more prevelant in men. And so on. Our social constructs reflect these biologies, which is why we admire risk-taking in men. Men who risk failure or death become our sports stars and politicians and entrepenuers. They also become our homeless (Depending on who you ask, 75%-90% of all homeless are male).

And finally, please don't use the Iriquouis Matriocracy myth as an example, It's been pretty well debunked. It stems from the ability of respected women to have the ability to say no to certain actions taken by the tribe, noteably warfare. This doesn't mean they were making the decisions, however. They simply got to say no, and sometimes were even listened to. The political power in the Iriquois were still males, the chiefs, the war leaders, the shamen. They did have a matrilineal social structure (traced heritage through mothers), though. And while this does give the mothers some soical clout, it doesn't affect the fact that the people in charge were actually male. Incidentally, the Cherokee and Egyptians were also matrilinear, and known for their warlike ways.

Now, i happen to believe that people are fundamentally the same. Screwed up and confused, no matter what may be between their legs. If Elizabeth were a boy, she'd still have likely had to deal with religious uprisings and the Spanish Armada. If Ghandi were a girl, she still would have preached non-violent resistance. WWI would have still happened if Victoria had lived a few more years. And had Abraham Lincoln or FDR been girls, they likely would have had to engage in those wars still as well. To lay the blame for wars upon the feet of one gender is as rediculous as laying at the feet of one race or one religion.

StJason's picture
StJason
Joined:
May. 20, 2010 10:59 am

Regarding the new comment by St. Jason, the very rarity of female run societies is almost certainly due to the effects of testosterone in fostering aggression and male dominance.

Regarding the cultural factor, a psychologist name Gert Hofstede from Europe (I forgot which nation) classified various nations on several cultural variables, including masculinity. He found that the more "masculine" nations, including the United States, Germany and Japan, were nations which started wars, while the more psychologically "feminine" nations avoided war, and never started any.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

If warfare was all about sexual fantasies, all of the Generals would have gone blind by now.

?....OK, slabmaster, I'm going to take the bait. What do you mean that the 'Generals would have gone blind by now'? They aren't fighting these wars by themselves....:)......

I really shouldn't have to explain this, but since you asked,

Mel was making reference to a book written by someone about how missles are phalic shaped and penetrate targets and this was supposed to be sexual fantasy driven because men design them for warfare and it all relates to sex, etc.... As silly as that sounds, I refer to the age old factoid told to boys by their parents generations ago, that too much physical fantasizing will make ya go blind!

As far as testosterone goes, I'd rather have it than a lack of. A few years ago when I used to lift and train fanatically, I took supplements that increased testosterone levels dramatically. No steroids, but herbal stuff. It was to get that little extra. It was noticable so I'm told. Makes ya a little edgy and short fused among other things.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 10:12 am

As silly as that sounds, I refer to the age old factoid told to boys by their parents generations ago, that too much physical fantasizing will make ya go blind!--slabmaster

:)....I figured that was what you were talking about....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Maybe just like ADHD, testosterone was more useful back in the hunter gathering age, and is less useful (other than for creating strife or competition) in modern, more sedentary life.

Also, we spend more time crammed together in buildings, so just as women's cycles tend to synchronise, maybe men and women are more affected by the testosterone or oestrogen around them, depending on which gender is dominant in the group.

SueN's picture
SueN
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I believe it was John Lennon who said. "Ism is a myth.......all we are saying is give Peace a chance"

wpanella's picture
wpanella
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Yet another prime example of progressives bickering over insignificance between one another, rather than solving true problems.

Speaking of Mahr, it was the same crap last weeks show. As Mahr and Booker preferred to argue differences in religion, we lost a real debate on the progress made in Mayor Booker's city, and how we can all participate.

This is why we can't get anything passed in congress.

We say we're the portion of the population who welcomes all: gay, straight, black, brown, non-believer, and those who do. Ideas are welcomed, but only as an opportunity to display disagreement.

Instead of itching to flex your intellect, how bout you all flex your biceps and start lifting this nation.

Tag, You're It!

dwalker81's picture
dwalker81
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Even though I have significant diffrences with Thom on feminism, I think his main point on feminized socities is a little different,. He usually refers to cultures where women have significant economic and reproductive freedom as equating to socities which have high egalitarian metrics. I think this is clearly true. But whether that is an indication of simply estrogen having a lead over testosterone is a different story. I think Thom wishes to use testosterone for a certain set of characteristics which ne believes are antithetical to egalitarian socities. I have no problem with that. But how we assign such characteristics needs to be discussed further

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

dwalker 81- For what it is worth I agree. I have done my share of activism in the last few years, though it has always been focused on trying to collect coherent information on what faces us and getting that info out for people to use and interact with this on their own.Also I should add I spent a lot of time simply calling folks from the local registerar of voters list for greens and tried to sign them up for a list serv or some other way of interacting. My experience with local activists found them very tepid in creating a larger conversation. Gatekeeper syndrome was in full swing so to speak. Thom always says get involved with local parties, and I tend to say get involved with people willing to look and work at what iformation needs to be disseminated and then work on getting the largest number of people involved in a discussion of what must be done. Part of what must be done is to get more disussion boards like these. Maybe this board does not meet the standards of significantly impacting change, but the idea it represents is a necessary one

So part of why I come here is with almost a sense of duty to contribute to a guy's show I believe in more than anything else out there. Do I wish this board had a bigger and better discussion? Sure, but sometimes it is necessary to start somewhere. Though, I will admit that there is an element of a desire to triumph that comes with these discussions, and I claim no immunity to that. And indeed that tendency does not further our efforts most of the time in having informative useful conversations, but we do what we can.

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Jeffbiss, that's just not true. I'm not a feminist and I don't believe male is "superior" to female, or vice-versa. Either one of those is a sexist belief. And I do believe the feminists are sexist when their feminism devolves into male-bashing (which it often does), which is anti-male sexism.

Ron

Jeebbo's picture
Jeebbo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Thom, I don't accept that criterion as a valid test of your assertion that "testosterone is a dangerous drug." For one thing, testosterone is not a drug, it's a naturally occurring hormone. Men and women both have testosterone and estrogen in their bodies. For it to be a drug, it would have to be introduced into our bodies by smoking, injecting, swallowing or drinking. Instead, it's manufactured by our bodies, and it's necessary to the health and welfare of both men and women. For another thing, your test of nations run by women vs. those run by men is an unfair test, because there are almost no nations that are run by women. Women-run nations exist in insufficient numbers to constitute a reliable statistical sample. For another thing, your test carries with it an unspoken assumption that I do not accept, that assumption being: Testosterone is the only thing that can cause wars, and 100 percent of wars are therefore caused by testosterone. An obviously fallacious assumption. Your statement that "testosterone is a dangerous drug" is so wrong on so many levels that I could write a "War and Peace" sized treatise about it. I don't have time for that. Have you ever read "The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell? I agree with at least 95 percent of what you say on your radio show but when you start talking about gender issues you are a veritable font of male-bashing and anti-male sexism. -- Ron

Jeebbo's picture
Jeebbo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

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

Jeebbo's picture
Jeebbo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Sue, regarding Maggie Thatcher. Don't you suppose she was prime minister at a time when she was no longer producing much estrogen?

I actually think she was a rather aggressive leader, look at the pain she inflicted on the miners in the North of England. Ruined an entire community and created generations of people on the dole.

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 do believe there would be much less war and violence if we had more female dominated governments.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

How To Bring Back A Middle Class

Thom plus logo From the 1930s to the Reagan Revolution, America grew the largest and most robust middle class in history. Along with strong unions, the main driver of that was that people earning more than about $10 million in today's money confronted a top tax rate of 91% until the 60s, and 67% until Reagan came into office.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system