Behavior OnLine Forums  
The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals.
Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine.

Go Back   Behavior OnLine Forums > >


Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 14th, 2011, 04:40 PM
James Brody James Brody is offline
Forum Leader
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia area
Posts: 1,143
Talking Weiner Chickified by Liberal Women?

According to Rush Limbaugh, “…‘We cannot blame what happened to Weiner on testosterone. We’re looking at a guy here who is kitty-whipped. If you want to get down to brass tacks on this, we’re looking at somebody who has been hanging around these kind of women and he’s doing anything he can to break out. He’s doing anything he can to break out. He’s doing everything he can to step out and get away from their control. This is Anthony Weiner being a guy. He’s not allowed to be a guy hanging out with a bunch of liberal women. ‘“

Michael Savage also talks a lot about “feminization” of American males. I believe the phenomenon exists and underlies today’s “liberal mainstream media” and is reflected in many comments to “girly men.”
“Chickification,” however, arises not from rules imposed by liberal women. The rules have always been there and switch on or off depending on the phase occupied by a culture. Toynbee sensed this. Network physicists also sense it, measure it, and draw its pictures in graphs. There are several steps.

1) “Genomic imprinting” changes the amount of “male” and “female” behaviors in a fetus. We now know that there are 1500 “imprinted” genes that referee the demands that any fetus makes on its mother. Imprints from the father lead to larger, more active, more impulsive offspring that are usually – but not always – male. Those from the mother lead to smaller offspring that make smaller demands on the mother that carries them. These smaller offspring also have bigger cerebral cortexes and, by implication, greater tendency to form large social networks and to follow rules. (See Burt, Austin, & Trivers, Robert (2006) Genes in Conflict: The Biology of Selfish Genetic Elements. Cambridge, MA: Belknap-Harvard, esp. Chapter 5; and Haig, D. (2002) Genomic Imprinting and Kinship New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.)

2) World Wars I and II killed massive numbers of European and American males. This, however, was a “self-selection” process in which our heroes more often died from German, Japanese, or Korean bullets. The quieter guys found positions in the Quartermaster, Motor Pool, Adjutant General, or Medical Corps and more often made it home to become fathers. The Russians may have a similar problem that could underlie their difficulty with maintaining their population. Islam and China both have an abundance of males…

3) Males often have a right frontal area that is larger and seems to be the “pattern-maker” – it discovers new relationships, defines them, and ships the pattern to the left side. It gives males advantages in science and mathematics but one that passes when the male passes age thirty. (Goldberg, E. (2001) The Executive Brain: Frontal Lobes and the Civilized Mind. NY: Oxford University Press. See also Murray, Charles (2003) Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts & Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 NY: Harper Collins.)

4) Kanazawa has found that “nastier” guys are more apt to produce sons. Unfortunately, we killed off a major portion of our “nasty” guys in war and put the rest of them, our impulsive nasty guys, in jail. The remainder have gone into politics, news, and banking in London, Belguim, France, Italy, and the United States. (Kanazawa S (2005) Big and tall parents have more sons: Further generalizations of the Trivers*Willard hypothesis. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 235: 583–590; Kanazawa S (2006) Violent men have more sons: Further evidence for the generalized Trivers*Willard hypothesis. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 239: 450–459; Kanazawa, Satoshi & Vandermassen Griet (2005) Engineers have more sons, nurses have more daughters: an evolutionary psychological extension of Baron-Cohen’s extreme male brain theory of autism. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 233: 589-599.)

5) Peter Csermely has lined up network characteristics with social “stress.” As assets (money, food, and homes) become more costly, “winner-take-all” emerges as the final stage before the network collapses and its parts are scavenged by invaders. (Csermely, Peter (2006) Weak Links: Stabilizers of Complex Systems from Proteins to Social Networks. NY: Springer; Barabasi, A-L (2002) Linked: The New Science of Networks. NY: Perseus; Barabasi, A-L (2010) Bursts: The Hidden Pattern Behind Everything that We Do. New York: Dutton.)

Notice that these models line up with computations used in Bose-Einstein research and that females have a vital role in stabilizing them. That is, women manufacture stories that make partnerships and stabilize existing relationships…a fine idea until the next drought, earthquake, meteor strike, invasion, or epidemic.

Thanks for sitting through this!
Reply With Quote

aggression, anthony weiner, genomic imprinting, girly-men, impulsiveness, michael savage, rush limbaugh

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © 1995-2023 Liviant Internet LLC. All rights reserved.