Contrary to what has been postulated in outdated studies and by certain sections of the media, agressive behaviour is not typically seen in hypogondal men who have their testosterone replaced adequately to the eugonadal/normal range. In fact aggressive behaviour has associated with hypogonadism and low testosterone levels and it would seem as though supraphysiological and low levels of testosterone and hypogonadism cause mood disorders and aggressive behaviour, with eugondal/normal testosterone levels being important for mental well-being. Testosterone depletion is a normal consequence of aging in men. One consequence of this is an increased risk for the development of Alzheimer’s Disease (Pike et al, 2006, Rosario 2004).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#...sterone_effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#Adult_testosterone_effects)
As it turns out, testosterone may not be the dread "hormone of aggression" that researchers and the popular imagination have long had it. It may not be the substance that drives men to behave with quintessential guyness, to posture, push, yelp, belch, punch and play air-guitar. If anything, this most freighted of hormones may be a source of very different sensations: calmness, happiness and friendliness, for example.
Friendliness???
Reporting here last week at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, researchers said that it was a deficiency of testosterone, rather than its excess, that could lead to all the negative behaviors normally associated with the androgen. Studying a group of 54 so-called hypogonadal men, who for a variety of reasons were low in testosterone, Dr. Christina Wang of the University of California at Los Angeles and her colleagues, found that before treatment, the men expressed a surprising suite of negative emotions. They did not feel passive or depressed or timid, as standard ideas of testosterone deficiency might predict. Instead, they described feelings of edginess, anger, irritability. Aggression.
When the men were given testosterone replacement therapy, and were asked to complete questionnaires about their moods several times over the course of two months of treatment, their general sense of well-being improved markedly. Their anger and agitation decreased, their sense of optimism and friendliness heightened.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...8260&sec=health (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7DD103DF933A15755C0A9639582 60&sec=health)
Low testosterone rather than high testorone is actually linked to aggression in humans.
Originally posted by Lynx+--> (Lynx)What was necessary for bringing down prey with primitive weapons is no longer necessary for the type of society leftists envision.[/b]
Male pattern muscle growth during puberty is the result of testosterone and the resulting superior average upper body strength does give an advantage in hunting with clubs for instance, but that doesn't mean that it also causes aggression. Making bodily changes that allow for a greater capacity to effective violence does not necessarily entail making mental changes which cause a greater predisposition to violence.
As stated above, its men with low levels of testosterone who are more likely to be aggressive.
Originally posted by Lynx+--> (Lynx)Men did the hunting, women did the gathering. Men fought wars, women played a supporting role. [/b]
Yah right i'm sure you have extensive verifiable data to support this. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Lynx
Place an individual in a situation involving danger or violence and their testosterone levels will rise. Make someone angry and the same will happen. It's like pushing a button and getting a predictable, yet involuntary reaction.
LOL you're thinking of adrenaline.
Originally posted by Lynx
What do you think testosterone does?
It mostly regulates muscle, bone, and hair growth and libido.
Originally posted by Jazzratt
By the time the concept of war was realised our society was already patriarchal, and since soldiers are in a position of power it seems only natural for the patriarchy to defend the male monopoly of power. This has nothing to do with testosterone.
Exactly.
Originally posted by Lynx
Adrenaline and cortisol are involved, yes. Also known as the 'fight or fright' response.
A response that women have as much as men. You're just backtracking from your ponit now.
Why do you seem to *want* testosterone to cause aggression? To excuse aggressive men or discourage aggressive women?
Originally posted by Lynx
Hunter-gatherers: Men did the hunting of the large ferocious beasts like mammoths, and women did the gathering of nuts and berries and took care of the children. This is what I was taught. I even saw it on The Nature of Things.
:lol: :lol: :lol: yes and i'm sure Victorian era speculative anthropology and pop science tv shows are entirely accurate.
Originally posted by Lynx
Why should Patriarchy be the decisive factor in having males fight in wars? Don't males make better soldiers?
No. Pulling a trigger doesn't require much upper body strength, pushing a button even less so. Even knifing someone doesn't.
Originally posted by Lynx
Testosterone not linked to aggression? Please!
Aren't 90% of violent crimes committed by males?
You also don't see many men who are the size of average women commit violent crimes. The fact that a 190 lb male has a vastly greater capacity to enact violence successfully than a 110 lb female means that even if the later is much more aggressive the former is more likely to risk a fight.
You don't need to make any speculative (and frankly, false) psychological claims to see that simple size differences and muscle to fat ratio differences would result in different levels of violence even if there were no mental differences.
Violent reactions are also much more socially available to men than to women (except female violence against men, which rarely results in prosecution so it doesn't contribute to crime statistics). Similarly, black men are vastly more likely to commit violent crimes than white men who are in turn more likely to commit crimes than asian men, but anyone who wasn't a racist nut would acknowlege that this is a fact of their social position and not of differing levels of aggression, and they clearly do not have differing levels of testosterone.
Originally posted by Lynx
Why are farm animals castrated?
For percisely the reasons mentioned above, to reduce libido and alter growth patterns (which is relevant for farm animals raised for food since castrated male animals are bigger than intact male animals when fed the same diet).
People don't castrate dogs because it makes them less aggressive but because they don't want them humping people's legs or knocking up other dogs.
Originally posted by Mujer Libre
Lynx- you realise that crime against women (and a large proportion of violent acts committed by men) is in many cases a result of a culture that values women's lives and wellbeing less than that of men? A culture that says that women are essentially inferior to men, and here for their enjoyment?
That makes very little sense Mujer Libre, men are much more likely to be violent against other men than they are to be violent against women. Most victims of violence are men many times over. Moreover, sentences for violence against women tend to be higher than violence against men for the same crimes. Missing women also attract much more media attention than missing men. You also constantly hear about violence against women, rarely if ever violence against men (except just as 'violent crime' with no mention of gender) despite the fact that most violence is committed against men.
So how is that indicative of a culture that values women's lives and wellbeing less than men's? If anything I think it indicates the opposite.
Generally I think the culture values women's lives more than men's and children's lives more than adults, but it gives much greater value to the agency and aspirations and lifestyles of men than women and adults than children. Women are more often told how to behave than men, but are also grieved over more; its part of seeing women (and to an even much greater extent children) as innocent semi-rational semi-objects and men as non-innocent rational actors.
Originally posted by Mujer Libre
Not to mention that you're extremely unlikely to find a decent peer-reviewed source that supports your view.
He probably could, there are plenty of small peer reviewed journals with articles that offer less than conclusive support for things like this. Its just that the preponderence of evidence is against it.
Originally posted by Lynx
What sexism? It's a stereotype.
A sexist stereotype, hence sexism.
Originally posted by Lynx
It's an award winning science program in Canada, hosted by David Suzuki.
Yah and James Wastson has a Nobel Prize and he thinks black people are stupid. I really don't see how being "award winning" and being hosted by an environmental activist makes it more credible, especially given that we're taking it on your vague recollection alone.
Originally posted by Lynx
Statistics, probably from the US Department of Justice
HAHAHA @ "probably"
Originally posted by Lynx
I suppose you will want to visit this Wiki page too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_crime
If there are inaccuracies best to correct them.
Oh, okay then, if that *proves* that men are just biologically more geered to violence than women due to greater amounts of testosterone, would you want to visit this Wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime#United_States
And give your explanation for why Black men are similarly more likely to be convicted of violent crimes than White men? Think they have more testosterone too??
Comrade
[email protected]
The 'men are causing the evil in the world' types are simply practicing a feminine version of chauvinism.
I don't see anything especially 'feminine' about it, plenty of asshole men like to imagine that men are naturally more aggressive than women. It both justifies them and allows them to keep women in what they percive to be their place.
Dean
however, it is very probable that women did spend more time caring for children in pre-historical times,
I think its also very probable that they could lactate but couldn't buy baby formula or milk cows :P. Even in feudal times wealthy women didn't take care of their own children.
And do you know what else is common in hunter gather societies and in pre-agricultural societies? Infanticide, also frequently practiced by women historically in pre-industrial societies.
If pre-modern women were so naturally predisposed to caring for children why did they so routinely kill them if they had too many or had them at inconveinent times? You're projecting contemporary values and sterotypes.