The world is a more volatile dangerous place under the guidance of testosterone-driven men. Not saying a women like Thatcher and Clinton can't be warmongers too, but they are the apparent exception. Most people seem to have a preference for peace and clean environment for theirselves and their children. Only the power elite divorce those goods from the picture when it comes to defense. Perth will suffer and I live there. But those who make horrible decisions and deals like AUKUS will not find the threats to be imminent to them. They assume all environmental threats are downstream issues not affecting THEIR domiciles.
Personally, I like the author's perspective on this - the idea that power itself drives these behaviours, not some biological imperative. It seems to me that constructing men as impulsive/aggressive/antisocial because of their testosterone levels - instead of because they live in a world that rewards them for behaving this way - is just reinforcing patriarchy.
I don't necessarily disagree on this, but I do think that power-elites tend to be male who tend to form government and make the awful decisions to invade another country. Patriarchy, oh yeh...but women are not immune to power and can wield it with just as treacherous disregard for humanity as can any male. In the world as it is, assertive women are seen as aggressive, men are rewarded, women denigrated. Just a thought.
Integrated, expansive, deep and researched piece of analysis
Thank you for drawing together these pieces — it is rarely done.
The world is a more volatile dangerous place under the guidance of testosterone-driven men. Not saying a women like Thatcher and Clinton can't be warmongers too, but they are the apparent exception. Most people seem to have a preference for peace and clean environment for theirselves and their children. Only the power elite divorce those goods from the picture when it comes to defense. Perth will suffer and I live there. But those who make horrible decisions and deals like AUKUS will not find the threats to be imminent to them. They assume all environmental threats are downstream issues not affecting THEIR domiciles.
I’m not sure if testosterone causes aggression
This seems essentialistic
A recent(ish) meta-analysis found that there isn't a huge amount of evidence to support a causative relationship between testosterone and aggression, which is pretty interesting: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0018506X19304519.
Personally, I like the author's perspective on this - the idea that power itself drives these behaviours, not some biological imperative. It seems to me that constructing men as impulsive/aggressive/antisocial because of their testosterone levels - instead of because they live in a world that rewards them for behaving this way - is just reinforcing patriarchy.
I don't necessarily disagree on this, but I do think that power-elites tend to be male who tend to form government and make the awful decisions to invade another country. Patriarchy, oh yeh...but women are not immune to power and can wield it with just as treacherous disregard for humanity as can any male. In the world as it is, assertive women are seen as aggressive, men are rewarded, women denigrated. Just a thought.
Everybody should read this !
gweneal velge where does your name come from .
Thx.
😃