Welcome to Alternative Ideas...

Providing a platform for new and different voices...

Friday, March 26, 2010

How far can you pee?

I think it is worth listening to this piece about testosterone, and its possible contribution to the financial crisis we're in.  It was music to my ears.  For years I have attributed much of our problems to men.  As a man I feel the inner drive and determining aspects of self that push from within.  Granted no two people are the same, but I have seen what I would consider the dark side of men, and I work quite hard to tame it.  I have been a very big proponent of balancing man and women, of realizing an egalitarian leadership structure for our world. 

I always come back to the James Bond and Tomorrow Never Dies quote from "M" when it was proposed to her that perhaps she "didn't have the balls" for her job.  To which she replied: "that means I don't have to always think with them".  It has to me forever been a a perfect example of some of the world's problems.  I think that men are too agressive and with the systemic instilations of capitalism this is being accentuated.  We grow up, harnessing and instigating testosterone based lives.  We bocome arrogant and far to self-assured and asertive.

This show itself spent time looking at the biology of financial traders and the male dominated society that the financial industry is.  Even as evidence was being sited that showed how diversity and gender equality in corporate and decision making processes tended to lead to better performance, many people calling and commenting seemed to brush this possibility off as gendered grandstanding.  But I will say this, my first job was in finance, and I can tell you it was so thoroughly testosterone/machismo based and overtly arrogant that I got out as soon as I could.  I have been that guy, and I don't see how it is truly productive and helpful for society. 

The dialog itself was great, however I did have one issue with it though.  When it was brought up by a caller that to start thinking that testosterone could do such a thing would eventually lead to drawing a correlation between this male arrogance/agression and political policies throughout the world.  That wars such as the one in Iraq could have fallen sway to such biological inspiration it was quickly dismissed.  Not even worth discussion.  I certainly think that this is not only discussable, but likely.  I distinctly remember George Bush's hubris over attacking Iraq and his personal vengence for Saddam Hussein, who had 'tried to kill his daddy'.  And in fact, more importantly, the foundation of modern international relations theory - 'realism' - is continually compared to a 'pissing contest', or a 'my dick's bigger than yours' scenario.  It is not only not a stretch, but is wholly realistic to think that with possitions of power being domminated by men that the world is a much more 'testosterone' based place.  More machismo, more I'm bigger, I'm tougher, I'm stronger, you're weaker, you're smaller, you're lesser. 

Fact is, that if the world could find a way to balance itself in terms of gender in leadership roles we would get A, a leadership representative of our population, and B, a softer, less aggressive political and social lifestyle.  I am not saying that people would not still fight, but a world with less 'machismo' would certainly be a safer and far more inclusive and inviting place. I mean after all, why can't we all just be happy with whatever it is that we've got, no matter what 'size' it is? 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please keep all comments and queries cooperative, constructive, and supportive in nature... Attacking, biting, or non-constructive comments will be removed. We want to build upon ideas, not tear them down...