Castration could bring us better politicians

Post Reply New Topic

Interesting post aghog

@ Auntie Blabby: I'm sorry I offended you. I wouldn't actually ever call for anyone's castration, I just found the article in question quite amusing.

We're not talking about having it done with human beings. We're talking about having it done with politicians. There is a difference. If you don't keep them in their place, next thing you know, you have a "dear leader" running things. It happens just as quick as that. SNAP!

Now, if I thought these people were serious, I'd say, "you just messed up in the cabeza, senior!" There is a fine line between maintaining a healthy disrespect for your leaders and being loony.

And I could probably dig up plenty of scholarly articles backing up the idea that women are all conceited and self-centered ninnies who suffer from a gigantic sense of self-entitlement but lack much inclination to earn it. I understand that women can be petty, back-stabbing, divisive morons who are incapable of cooperating with each other to save their own skins. I have known women who would say anything to undermine their best friend's reputation if it suited them to do so.

However, I have always had this weird idea--maybe it's foolish and old-fashioned--that people of different genders should try to be nice to each other and accept each other's differences, both individual and those that are actually related to their respective genders. Maybe it's just egalitarian nonsense.

Castration would not deter female politicians.

Do you wish to live in the Republic of p**** Whipped?

ruveyn

Heh, personally, I'm not terribly impressed with the female politicians we've seen lately. Hillary Rodham-Clinton may have redeemed herself lately, but she has at some points in her career made herself look like the worst cutthroat politician ever to walk the Earth. Sarah Palin is a stereotypical borderline psychotic MARE FROM HELL. Bachmann is a downright bully. Also, Governor Perdue is a pretentious, shallow, two-faced, sleazy bee-atch, and her lack of gonads has allowed the GOP to pretty much take a war ax to our entire state...it will take decades to undo the destruction that the Republicans have done here in one year, largely because of her spinelessness and ineptitude. Furthermore, Marshall, who tried to run against Burr for US Senate, quite deservedly lost because she treated her position of North Carolina Secretary of State basically as a sinecure for the entire time period in which she held it...she did NOTHING to justify her existence while she held that office.

Wouldn't bug me, in particular. I don't have much of a problem with female leaders. I just get really tired of hearing about the moral infallibility of All Womankind, and I get tired of hearing men being whitewashed as these evil, thuggish, moronic, misogynistic bastards when there are plenty of sensitive, intelligent, artistic men out there who are no less "masculine" for this fact. When I was living on-campus as a full-time student, the guy who was the most determined to dislodge me from a suite I was staying in one semester was this wimpy, fey b***h who went into a white-eyed panic every time he got the idea in his stupid head that I was making a come-on to him, yet the two room-mates that I had who were openly supportive of my sexuality were actually these muscle-bound, marine-looking guys.

I seriously hate the brand of feminism that would lead us to believe that "all that is female is good, and all that is male is bad." It's bull crap. Women are not morally infallible just by virtue of being women.

Testosterone fuels the competitive nature in both women and men, a deficit might not ruin the career of a female politican in office. But, lower levels mean less of a competitive nature, and one does not normally enter politics without a competitive nature.

Currently it would do no effective good to castrate politicians, the alpha male/female, is part of primate life; a hormonal reality. There is always another alpha male/female waiting for their turn, and those individuals that support socio/biological based patriarchal ideology will likely only support those that reflect not only the cultural aspect of it, but the biological aspect of it as well.

I would never actual advocate castrating anyone, or altering their hormones against their will, it is part of what makes a person who they are.

And, from a medical perspective it is, part of what fuels the required energy and makes the competitive nature of a politician fierce, man or woman. As long as politics remains a competitive institution, testosterone will likely be a required component for any individual planning on entering politics regardless of gender or party.

And from a different perspective, that could eventually be a problem in a competitive society where something is upsetting the hormonal balance.

Someone has to lead an organization. It's not easy, in general from a physiological standpoint, it takes at least normal testosterone levels to do it effectively, or even motivate someone to want to take on the challenge.

In general, as far as the gene pool goes, the politican pool, may be getting smaller, because of deficits in testosterone, in the general population.

Your second question could be refective of a biological reality as well as a cultural reality, that some in the media reflect and amplify as a fear, in the culture of politics.

As to the answer, if it is in part a biological phenomenon, it could be part of human destiny, whatever that may be, that no one is going to have a great deal of control over, except for the testosterone supplement business.

At many times in the past eunuchs volunteered to be castrated and often paid to have it done.
It would certainly show they were serious about getting the job if they did it.
However most likely these days they would just learn tricks from transvestites on hiding their parts and pay off the jewell inspectors to lie for them.

It's also a poorly understood hormone, and I resent the ignorance surrounding it. It is wrong to blame testosterone for aggressive behavior. One of its metabolites, dihydrotestosterone, is correlated with aggression. Dihydrotestosterone contributes to male mounting behavior, and it brings out certain secondary sex characteristics such as body hair.

However, to say that dihydrotestosterone causes people to behave with criminal violence would be condemning people in the cradle, which I think is wrong. A poor upbringing, especially drastic abuse, causes male antisocial behavior. A lack of education causes male antisocial behavior. I don't think it's right to condemn all men for the externalizing behavior of some victims of abuse and poverty. Men may externalize more, but it's a symptom, not the disease. The disease is unaddressed need and ignorance.


Besides, testosterone is not the only hormonal culprit in human unpleasantness. Let's take the role of estrogen in territorial behavior:



Of course, to then say that "estrogen causes male aggression" would constitute an oversimplification. It might be a handy weapon for a dishonest proponent of a self-serving ideology, but it's otherwise useless to someone who doesn't have a professional understanding of the role of hormones in behavior.

But I really feel a need here to defend testosterone. I don't want to throw dihydrotestosterone under the bus, since I don't have a full understanding of the hormone, but testosterone is NOT the "brute hormone" that most people think it is! If anything, men with high testosterone compared to other hormones should be nicer in some ways.



But does that mean that it will always work this way? Well, what if you were to put men with high testosterone in a society where the road to social acceptability was to run around poking other men with sharp and pointy things? Can you say "Feudal Europe"? A lot of how hormonally induced behavior actually manifests is determined by environmental factors. The action of the hormones is there, but it can be shaped in a lot of different ways.

Essentially, over-simplifying what hormones actually do is only useful for people who have dishonest motives.

The Wizard said sheep-guts work much better, then, cattle entrails, but cuboid boners led to crap shoots,
and the famous phrase "Seven-come-Eleven".

Tadzio

The new anti-social personality disorder diagnosis in the DSMV has moved away from the criminal centric view of anti-social personality. Because it is understood that anti-social behavior is not necessarily associated with violent or criminal behavior.

I'm not suggesting that testosterone fuels violence in politicians, it's not a socially acceptable method of expressing aggressive behavior in a civilized society, in fact overt aggressive behavior in politicans is rarely acceptable, per the criticisms given to politicians when they physically posture themselves over others or lose their temper.

Testosterone has definitely reliably and repeatedly been shown in research, as associated in fueling competitive behavior related to social status, which is the accepted and desired norm in politics.

Individuals with lower basal levels of testosterone have been studied to be more uncomfortable in high status positions whereas those with higher basal levels of testosterone have been studied to be more uncomfortable in lower status positions.

This finding has been replicated in numerous studies.

The study you provided was limited to females, it's not surprising that they would avoid conflict with or without a one time testosterone supplement, because of learned behavior over a lifetime.

In fact it's not surprising that males and females with high basal levels of testosterone exhibit physical agression in acceptable areas, such as contact sports, while they don't in the workplace because it's not socially acceptable in that environment.

The overall general competitive nature though, of individuals with higher basal levels of testosterone, remains as far as the desire to retain higher levels of social status.

And social status varies for some individuals; it might be status among friends, relatives, church, work, sports, vicarious activities, material accomplishments, etc.

Women with higher levels of testosterone are more competitive, per physiological measures. It is the reason that the hormone is measured at times in female athletes to ensure that that these female athletes are genetically female, and do not have an unfair advantage in competition because of unaturally high levels of testosterone.

Testosterone is definitely not the only hormone that influences this, and I agree many other environmental/cultural factors influence it, but the general association of competitive nature/higher status seeking individuals with higher basal levels of testosterone, is understood as factors that are strongly associated with each other, in studies that have been done in the United States.

It's not likely this phenomenon is seen as strongly in more egalitarian leaning cultures, in Scandanavian countries.

In matriarchal leaning cultures, in relation to Reuvyn's comment, women are seen as more competitive than men and there may be hormonal changes that accompany this cultural change as well, as reflected in the reduction in levels of sexual di-morphism seen in some of these cultures.

This link: http://www.neoteny.org, discusses an interesting theory associated with this and autism.

Would you mean if politicians were to be castrated it would put a more literal meaning to the ones that refused the operation that they are “not cut out for the job”?

Interesting play on words, I think the general association of testosterone is interesting, and plays a role, however, of course, testosterone alone doesn't make an individual cut out for politics or operations associated with it; intelligence, knowledge, skills, abilities, a lifetime of influence, familial expectations and resources, and many other factors come into play.

It definitely could make the singular difference though, in an area like special operations, in the military, as to whether or not one could meet the physical requirements and challenges of a job like that when they are extremely high.

I'm approaching this from a general hormonal association. The actual incidence of something like this is unimaginable in our civilized society, as it exists. Likely everyone would suffer a great deal more in a society where such a thing would be acceptable.

Phthalates, are a harsh enough punishment in the way of endocrine disruption, if research is any where close to correct, in the plastic world we have existed in, since the 50's. The synergy of effect all of the other "new" factors in our environment will likely never be within anyone's grasp.

Yeah, and, if you look above, look what you find! An article I cited and posted on exactly that fact!

In fact, I actually posted some pretty good material above discussing the role of dihydrotestosterone in the manifestation of physical aggression and conflict.

What I'm trying to address here is the antiquated "feminist" concept that men and all that is "masculine" is the source of all evil and harm. On the other hand, we have come a long way by cultivating in males of our species the idea that it is a GOOD thing to be sensitive, caring and supportive. It works REALLY really well. To be clear, this is what I've been raving about.

The thing on autism in matriarchial societies sounds interesting...details?

I was clarifying I wasn't suggesting that physical violence or physical agression was associated with this phenomenon, it seemed to me you might have thought that was what I meant by competitive behavior in politicians.

I wasn't suggesting that testosterone was an inherently evil thing, but it is obviously a component of importance in the competitive behavior associated with politics, and is also associated with empathy, as seen in recent studies on fatherhood and the natural fall of testosterone, when a male is involved in nuturing behavior.

It appears I am in general agreement, with what you are saying here.

Many environmental factors influence the balance.

In the patriarchy of the past when men worked and many women stayed at home, this requirement for males was not as strong as it is today.

The "pill" changed society in significant ways in 1960; the ability for women to control reproduction, is a big part of the move toward egalitarianism in the US, along with legal abortion.

The link I provided in my response to your last post takes one to a site, that a member of this website created. It addresses some of these issues much better than I can.

While the prevalent hormonal theory of autism focuses on prenatal testosterone and autism, his theory actually focuses on the potential effects of prenatal estrogen and autism. The study you provided on male rats and estrogen influence reminded me of it.

He wrote a book on the subject and it is available in a free format for anyone that is interested in reading it on his website. It goes into detail on the transitions in culture from patriarchal ones to matriarchal ones, and the potential that hormonal changes influence biology along with the cultural changes that occur in these transitions.

At last a job for Justin Bieber becomes available in the British Civil Service.

A professor of mine has an interesting theory regarding pomegranates. Herbal birth control in ancient times is arguably one of the cornerstones of civilization as we understand it. Women were suddenly able to keep non-committed partners entertained, and they could wait for a partner who was willing to stay around for a while before conceiving. I think this might have contributed paradoxically to doing away with purely matriarchial societies because men who previously spent little time around an encampment suddenly had more reason to identify with a permanent home. On the other hand, if you told the women this was a problem back then, they would say, "useless, dumb man fix roof; let useless, dumb man beat chest. Bah!" The thing is, where you get early matriarchial societies is that men in hunter/gatherer societies would have seen it as "effeminate" to hang around camp, "like some mama's boy," instead being a "warrior." What we call "patriarchy" was really a step forward for women, in a way, because the women's whole mission was to get their husbands to stay around to tend to and maintain things.

In fact, we tend to exaggerate the role of patriarchy in ancient societies. The fact of the matter is that it meant almost exclusively that men protected external boundaries, and women tended to households or encampments. The male ego would have you think that men pretty much ruled in these societies, but cave-woman say, "Hell freeze over before I beat buffoon next door with stick. Let idiot husband do it." Honestly, Cicero was away from his wife for years at a time: he was not overlord of his household by any stretch of the imagination. It wouldn't have been possible. Soldiers that were off on years-long campaigns could NOT just catch a plane ride home to see their women, so their women had pretty much the run of things.

And, even in modern societies where women seem to be second-class citizens, try telling a withered Iranian matriarch that you want her daughter to have the right to run around in Daisy Dukes, which are fashionable on college campuses lately, and have sexual relations with whomever she wants, whenever she wants. She would probably kill you. Therefore, what ultimately breaks the back of patriarchy is getting the women in those societies to believe that it is good and useful. Patriarchy may be oppressive, but the sense of "social order" that comes from it offers a sense of security, even to those who are victim of it.

I know some people who would say, "well, that's putting the blame on the victim," but the whole point behind "overturning the patriarchy" is to confer upon women a sense of self-empowerment. Chivalry was arguably one of the most feminist ideas that men have ever had, but it could never have by itself been a true liberation for women until women could stand up and say, "I don't need your chivalry. I need my independence."

However, the idea that birth control might figure in here could still hold. If I remember correctly, it was during the 1200s that the first water powered paper mills were built, and this was accompanied by a reintroduction and wider distribution of a great deal of classical material in Western Europe, including much of the works of Dioscorides. Furthermore, the water-powered paper mill would make it cheap. Therefore, perhaps an interesting theory is that chivalry was sort of born partly because of women in Europe regaining control over their reproduction. Dang, my professor would LOVE this because I remember him saying at some point that chivalry and "courtly love" came about because someone developed the silly idea that women could not conceive unless they climaxed during love-making.

Pardon me. I know you're talking about one thing. I'm somewhat off on my own tangent, this being a pet issue for me. In fact, I owe you something of an apology for being a little egocentric here.

Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 04 Jan 2012, 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No problem, your thoughts on ancient patriarchy were interesting.

There are a couple of studies that suggest hormonal birthcontrol pills impact mate selection because of the physiological changes that they create in women.

It's controversial but if the association is significant, biological changes because of the pill, could play a role along with the enhanced reproductive control.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=birth-control-pills-affect-womens-taste

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/10/12/women-on-the-pill-may-choose-reliable-over-sexy-study-suggests/