The Men From MARs:
Correctly Identifying NASCAR Dads, Blue-collar workers, Overseers, etc., as Beta Males
Seen From an Evolutionary Perspective
and Their Importance in American Politics from the 1970s to Present.
William A. Spriggs
August 10, 2003
Near Fredericksburg VA. Overseer Doing His Duty.
Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 1798.
© Kathleen Cohen,
Current Repository: Maryland Historical Museum
A Special Note
to Female Readers
This essay is addressed to two primary groups: first, to liberals and progressives who were upset by the results of the 2002 elections in America and are seeking solutions; and the second, those who understand, or who would like to learn more about the intricate dance that innate evolutionary predispositions bring to bear in human behavior, in particular, the human group behavior called, politics. This essay is also a call to identify and focus upon a voting bloc so essential to winning elections but has been ignored or shunned for too long by those same progressives and liberals. This is a political essay written for 2003, but viewed from the perspective of evolution.
To progressives, the disturbing events of which I speak are not only the loss of political power but the putting into place programs enacted by conservatives in their wake. This movement is sending strong signals that it wants to change society to their liking - permanently: Enormous tax cuts for the rich; the dismantling of civil liberties; executive ordered faith-based programs; the assault on public schools perceived as ineffective; the cuts in health care for the indigent and poor at a time when they are needed most; and of course, the unprecedented rise of Machiavellian military action as foreign policy. Overall, progressives are in deep dismay at the thought that, currently there is a nation-wide consensus that "government" -- and the strong belief that it could be a major force in bettering society -- has become a dirty word. It has come to this because a small group of conservative elites has become the enemy of empathy and altruism and are using a wide-reaching media propaganda machine to convince a temporary majority that greed is equated with goodness; that only the "strong" should rule, and that the weak and whiney shall perish from the Earth.
This propaganda machine is merely the icing on the cake of a determined, and, I must admit, brilliant 25-year social strategy that has had as its goal the dismantling of the welfare system; the discrediting of programs designed to reverse racial discrimination; and the not so obvious attempt to destroy a corps of dedicated city, state, and federal employees. These governmental workers are viewed by conservatives as being employed by a "liberal government," and that this group tends to vote in a left-leaning manner as allegiance to the system that rewarded them with employment. So, the conservative game plan is simple: if government is reduced or eliminated, you also destroy the voting base of the Democratic Party. But there is an added bonus: By destroying "government," you also remove any barriers for the rich to "legally steal" from the poor, the old, and the weak.
When you are done with this essay, you will understand implicitly that the mean-spirited core of conservatism is driven by the oligarchical philosophy of alpha masculine dominance which has evolved from our primal past, and manifests itself today in the total disregard for the concerns of the poor, the disenfranchised, and in particular, their patronizingly negative view of the "hysterical and emotional" female. To sum it up beautifully in one line, Richard Goldstein in the March 24, 2003 issue of The Nation has written: [Conservatives believe] "Their tough-love style represents patriarchal values of strength and order" p.18. I want the phrase "patriarchal strength and order" to burn into your memory from this point on in the essay because it is the common thread in evolutionary primate studies where the alpha male is dominate primarily through physical strength. And that is the primary objective of this essay - to combine an evolutionary perspective to human behavior, which most likely morphed into male-created religious canons, which then morphed again into the male-dominated world of politics today. [As an added bonus: after this essay, there is a link to a web site call "Emotional Competency" where it will explain in social terms, the male dominance contest. Added, May 24th, 2007]
Men are from MARs, and the conservatives know it.
But now, I want to turn our specific attention to the most important element of this educational piece which focuses on the blue-collar worker of today, or identified in 1982 as the MARs -- Militant American Radicals - as described by Samuel T. Francis in The New Right Papers, Saint Martins Press, 1982, See my book review [http://www.evoyage.com/Book%20Reviews/NewRightPapers.htm]. In this book, which some in the Democratic Party have called the Bible of the present conservative movement, the editor, Robert Whitaker credits the "newly found" target audience that lies outside its base for the success of the new conservative movement. "The combination of voters which elected President Reagan was not a new one...It consisted of two major elements. The first was the basic Republican presidential vote, about forty percent, which has suffered little defection even in Democratic landslides. The second element, which turned the election into a rout, was made up of voters who, in earlier days, were overwhelmingly Democrats."
"These former Democrats are largely white Southerners and blue-collar Northerners, who, when the focus of debate between the parties was economic, voted for Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy. But the focus of political debate shifted in the 1960s, when the Democrats became the party of social engineering. Thereafter, these voters began to vote for third parties or for Republicans, or to stay home on Election Day. Social engineering is a massive manipulation of a society's structure and values, aimed at bringing about desired "social change" in the direction considered best by small elites. It is carried out through programs to achieve racial balance, "progressive" education, the discrediting of traditional values and parental authority, and imposition of a new ideology and morality. The opponents of social engineering are fittingly referred to here as social conservatives...for a new majority to be built; social conservatives must become an integral part of the Republican Party". pp. ix, x, xi.
Before we continue, I feel it is necessary to make sure that you understand the code words that conservatives used above in describing the mechanics behind "social engineering." These are programs they feel are used "to achieve racial balance" refer to federal laws designed to eliminate Jim Crow laws in industries that receive federal dollars; these were designed to reverse hundreds of years of blatant racial discrimination. The code words, "progressive education" refers to school busing; which also was an attempt to reverse years of blatant imbalance in the quality of education that existed between different racial neighborhoods. The "discrediting of traditional values" and "parental authority" means dropping discrimination laws against gays and lesbians "marrying" and enjoying the same benefits as a "traditional married couples;" this means the destruction of "traditional" cultural standards which conservatives view as inviolate; it dictates that only a male and female can be considered a "married" couple, with the male as the financial, spiritual, and moral head of that family. The code word phrase "traditional values," also includes any attempt to pass equal rights legislation aimed at equality between men and women; this is important to conservatives because this includes the very important view that combat roles in the military must never include women. To do so, is viewed as decreasing the importance on male dominance, and the importance of males as "protectors." The "imposition of a new ideology and morality" is largely an overview statement of society which conservatives say liberals believe in "equality" in all people, and "morality" is the conservative reference that liberals regard open sexual contacts and a "free lifestyle" that are "immoral" and "ungodly' (read without Christian leadership with the male firmly in command).
In quoting The New Right Papers, do you recall the reference to "a small elite?" Yes, it is basically the same argument that I used in my opening remarks - only now, it is a small conservative elite (called, in 2003, the neocons) that are driving their agenda and are "engineering a massive manipulation of our society's structure and values." Their goal is exactly the same that they accused the liberals of attempting during their exile from power: Of bringing about social change that their group considers the best path for the rest of "us" (their children). I can not emphasis enough about this point highlighting "parental control," for it reaches down into the very soul as the motivating basis (before organized religions began) for one's group control over another group in the behavioral mechanism of "achieving 'good.' It touches upon group selection, --groups, as opposed to individuals alone -- placing evolutionary selection pressures into the local environmental mix via politics.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander
As I pointed out, the elite conservative movement was complaining about liberals using the exact same control methods that they want to establish for their own purposes - of course, with different outcomes. In the case of liberals, it is their belief that government can equally distribute resources to the largest groups of individuals for the good of society; conservatives believe that only the wealthy, educated, and privileged individuals know best how to "trickle down" resources to those they think deserve them.
This common behavior between liberal and conservative
elites leads us to a powerful and logical, though still speculative, conclusion:
That human society as a whole, is composed of varying groups that behave
as an individual would acting alone in a highly competitive world. And like
individuals, it is still about where we, as humans, rank in our own hierarchy.
Also, like individuals, groups understand innately that within every hierarchy
there are dominates and subordinates who identify with each other, form alliances,
and use these alliances to gain advantage for themselves and keep resources
away from those considered subordinates. For many years as our societies
expanded, and multiple groups diverged and grew, science was a loss to weave
an interconnecting understanding of the complex behaviors that evolved from
these group behaviors despite confirming the many universals. But just recently
(1999), social scientists have convincingly developed an excellent theory regarding
various behaviors that tend to be found in all societies that have a direct
bearing on this essay. The theory behind the building of alliances and methods
of discriminations to benefit dominates to the detriment of the subordinates
is called the Social Dominance Theory of Sindanius and Pratto. Social Dominance:
An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression, by Jim Sidanius, Felica
Pratto, Cambridge University Press, May, 2001. See my book
I will not go into detail about the Dominance Theory, but in regards to this essay, it suggests that elites around the globe use similar methods of implementing this dominance and control over subordinates, which include forming alliances with beta males -- the focus of this essay -- to do their bidding to eliminate, inhibit, or eliminate those subordinates that alpha elites consider harmful or not worthy of decency and respect.
I can't think of a more effective way to introduce this target group of beta males, or MARs, then to use the one that Samuel T. Francis used as mentioned above in The New Right Papers: "The social movement that the New Right expresses -- whose values, resentments, aspirations, and fears it tries to articulate -- is composed of what sociologist Donald I. Warren calls "Middle American Radicals" -- MARs. This movement is less an objectively identifiable class than a subjectively distinguished temperament, yet it possesses verifiable features that set it apart from other social groups and formations....In the mid-1970s, MARs had a family income of $3,000 - $13,000; (in 2003 terms....$12,500 to $55,000....) MARs were nearly twice as common in the South as in the north-central states. They tended to have completed high school but not have attended college. ...They tended to be in their thirties or in their sixties and were 'significantly less likely to be professional or managerial workers' than to be 'skilled and semi-skilled blue-collar workers.' Yet these statistical features do not define MARs. What defines them as a movement is an attitudinal quality. According to Warren, MARs are a distinct group partly because of their view of government as favoring both the rich and the poor simultaneously...MARs are distinct in the depth of their feeling that the middle class has been seriously neglected. If there is one single summation of the MARs perspective, it is reflected in a statement which was read to respondents: The rich give in to the demands of the poor, and the middle income people have to pay the bill.'" The New Right Papers, P. 67, quoted from Donald I. Warren, The Radical Center: Middle Americans and the Politics of Alienation, Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976) pp. 23-29 (Underline emphasis mine).
The reason that I have underlined this last sentence is because the current Bush administration has just passed (June 2003) the third largest tax cut ever in America's history which is highly skewered toward the rich. It would seem that the conservative movement is now moving into an obvious final stage of "social engineering" by attempting to put into place tax laws and regulations that strongly favor the upper-class and the corporate power structure, while at the same time "screwing" the very population that it just boasted helped to get them into power. Now, this is important because it gives strong support to the Social Dominance theory of Sidnasus and Pratto that argues dominates will use every available means to increase their power (hierarchy enhancing) while at the same time do everything to reduce the power (hierarchy attenuating) of those below them in them in their respective hierarchies - even the very people who helped get them more power.
This sets up the classic widening of the gap between the rich and the poor in which the rich continue to make financial advances and the middle and lower classes remain where they are, or lose ground economically. When this classic social situation arises, it is only time when circumstances creates enough social unrest and the economic system "collapses." This will occur when the lower and middle classes consciously become aware that they are getting the shaft and a "critical mass of thought" develops as a "regime change" through voting. And the economic system will "collapse" when economic circumstances become intolerable because history is full of examples of abuses by wealthy elites (i.e., Ken Lay of Enron) that have gone unchecked or unpunished. This is one of the primary reasons to rid America of "government," because it would remove all forms of legislative restraints that allow corporate greed to run rampant regardless of the consequences.
But, this "collapse and regime change scenario" will only take place if the Democrats can mount a significant media campaign of their own by focusing on these economic gaps; you can't solve a major public problem if the public sentiment needed to move the mechanisms for change are not aware that the problem exists. Remember the above passage about MARs? "MARs are a distinct group partly because of their view of government as favoring both the rich and the poor simultaneously." With the current conservative propaganda machine in place, the elites have increased their "myth enhancing" capabilities and have eliminated the rich as part of the problem that was once seen as a problem by the MARs. In the 2003 version of the tale, it is the conservative rich that are the saviors and protectors of America; they provide jobs, and make sure that the moral fabric of our society is maintained. In the conservative world, it is the "evil" liberals, the poor -- and coming very soon -- the elderly, that create the "problems" that constantly drag down this great country. Obviously, the 2002 election results bear solid proof to the testament that this propaganda machine is working, and working very well. It seems that screwing the poor and the weak and keeping them in their place while "looking the other way" over the excessive displays and financial abuses of the rich, obviously seemed to have resonated with this small, but powerful militant voting bloc.
Will the Democrats mount a counter-offensive and regain their prominence? Well, the Democrats could wait until the economic system collapses again as the elites suck all the money and resources for themselves and make the poor and middle class pay for it as they did in the Robber Baron era. And when unemployment reaches 12% and no one can afford to see a movie, nor send their sons or daughters to the doctors, let along go to college; when the common people will have to make life or death decisions about whether to buy medicines for themselves, or buy food or heat their homes, the series of events will take care of themselves in the collapse and the Democrats merely have to present themselves as the clear alternative. After all, how did America get 30 years of FDR and the liberal programs that came with his era? It was because the system collapsed through excesses of the free and unfettered marketplace in the 1920s -- read no federal regulations in place -- no government. It was from these economic ashes that the Democratic Party raised itself in prominence by distributing jobs and safety net programs.
But why should we wait until the system collapses and all go through all that turmoil, agony, and disinflation? After all, if the conservatives have exposed their Achilles' heel by telling us that this important, yet distinct group of voters is all you need to win elections, then all the Democrats have to do is to identify and become more closely aligned with this group to win them back. We were given a description of these people above as former Democrats, mostly Southern, white males who have some college, and "significantly less likely to be professional or managerial workers; they also fall into the classification of skilled and semi-skilled blue-collar workers." But times and circumstances have changed since 1982, and it is time for a more modern and scientific view of what composes this critical group and what motives them. In other words, it is time to bring biological and evolutionary perspectives to bear in this search.
But before we look at the present and future, we need to momentarily look at the immediate past. Conservatives will burst with pride that these MARs switched their political allegiances away from the Democrats in the 1970s because of affirmative action programs (busing) that went violently against their social wishes of forced racial integration, and the Equal Rights Act which further stirred the moral outrage that southern males felt in seeking equal rights for women (recall that conservatives believe that women must be "submissive" to the male). But my sense from studying the historical job markets was that the political switch was due primarily to the loss of union jobs in manufacturing to third world countries; in America's south, this was particularly disastrous due to the massive closing of textile plants. When economic times are bad and a man (or a woman who heads a family) can not feed, clothe, or house their family, they become frustrated and angry. When they become angry, the last thing they will do is turn this anger inward (which is depression), and they seek a venue in which to vent their fury. Since the job that they once held no longer existed, and the unions that they once relied upon to fight their grievances were mostly destroyed, the MARs could not blame the owners of the companies -- this festering anger had to go somewhere. That pent up fury, understood by the conservatives and played upon like a fine fiddle, was placed solely in the direction of the liberals and the wasteful spending practices of the "government" that financed those social engineering programs and favored the non-Biblical belief in the equality of all men -- and in particular, of women.
In 2003, America faces a new world in which many of the manufacturing jobs (And now professional white collar jobs -- see Fortune magazine, June 23, 2003, p. 78, "Down and Out in White-Collar America," and Time magazine, August 4, 2003, p. 36, "Where the good jobs are going.") are still disappearing to third world countries. In fact, as America recovers from a stock market bubble burst in the late 1990s, economists are worrying that the recovery is a "jobless" recovery where America companies are using even larger amounts of technology to compete with cheap foreign labor. And, even if inexpensive manual labor is needed in this country, the massive migration of illegal aliens from south of America's borders over the past fifteen years has keep the lid on rising wages, creating more benefits for employers and increasing their leverage over the common worker. It will be very interesting to see how the layoff of highly-skilled workers plays out in the 2004 elections.
Welcome to my world
We are now at the doorstep of the blue-collar working world in which I belong in 2003; it is within this economic and social hierarchy where I have lived and worked since 1983. I have been a letter-carrier with the U.S. Postal service since then, and I have observed at close range this specific group that I will profile; I therefore offer myself as an expert merely by being in close proximity to this group for over 20 years and my intense interest in evolutionary psychology over past nine years. You must understand that that the MARs described above in The New Right Papers do exist today, but I am here to strongly argue that this group of militant males only represents about 10% of all semi-skilled workers, but that a majority of blue-collars do associate with, and also do tend to echo the sentiments and behaviors of this active 10%.
I have always been amazed that in my office of about 110 workers, only about 10% of these workers tend to set policy, not only in union matters, but also do influence management decisions easily. Because of this extreme active ability to change its local environment, I have called this "movement," or active mechanism that this group creates, as the "Catalystic Social Norm." I know that this is not scientific, but I swear you can almost visualize this inner-circle as the group which represents the "head of the herd" that subordinate union members follow. It has been my privilege to observe other local unions and their officials, and tend to see the same overall view. Perhaps, what I am viewing is nothing more than the "in" crowd at a local high school that subordinate students "look up to," and this group behavior has just moved on to a semi-skilled manufacturing plant.
I argue that conservative policy makers believe that 100% of all blue-collar, semi-skilled workers fall into this malleable category. The only reason that I can see for this fatal flaw is my speculative belief that the conservative power structure ONLY WISHES TO SEE the 10% that responds to their militaristic drum-beating that can be used for their purposes. It is my strong belief that it comes down to a simple reason: why bother to look deeper? Who cares what the other 90% think if they follow the 10% that starts the Catalystic Social Norm -- the norm that is useful to carry out the mandate needed by the dominate elites
But we can not understate how important this 10% activist group is to events that surround us. In fact, if we look closely at history -- just beyond the prominent figures that historians and Hollywood love to focus upon -- we find this 10% catalystic group doing all the physical hard work and following the orders to the letter that "gets the job done" -- even if following those orders would put them into harm's way or the orders are "evil" to be committed. It's the real reason that made historical events possible and gave "success" to prominent figures like Caesar, Napoleon, and -- yes, even the evil Hitler. You don't really believe that Alexander the Great got behind all those elephants and pushed them over the mountain passes by himself do you? You don't really believe that when it came to getting slaves on American plantations to obey all orders or face whippings or mutilating, that the "gentlemen" owners would be the ones handing out the punishment? You don't really believe that Hitler personally built the ovens and lit the fires that incinerated millions of humans do you?
What I am trying to get you to understand is that someone had to do all that "dirty" work to make these historical events occur -- whether the actions were for good or for evil -- and I stand to strongly argue that throughout history, that is where we will find these aggressive catalystic 10% males who follow orders obediently behind the scenes. Why is this so? And, once again, who are these aggressive and compliant males and what motivates them? Well, this is where your study of primates and evolution kick in, and our focus begins with the most likely candidate to evolve into the human species: The Chimpanzees.
I'm going to go into greater detail later on in this essay regarding our primate heritage and the importance that our internal chemical biology has crept into our modern behaviors, and in particular, our focus group, but I feel that those currently unfamiliar in the vast evolutionary perspective need a quick primer. Even though scientists are still debating the subject, they strongly suggest that humans most likely had a common ancestor that evolved from the Chimpanzee and Bonobo species; and that they tend to lean toward the belief that humans evolved from the Chimpanzees. Physically, the Bonobos are more human-like then the Chimpanzees with their almost human-like facial features and long legs. But mentally, the Bonobos are the "make love, not war" species. This species, which is primarily female dominated, resolves their everyday conflicts with sex. And not just the normal heterosexual variety either; it is male to female, female to female, male to male, young adults with elders, and young adults with other young adults. That is the reason that science has strongly suggested that humans evolved mentally from the chimpanzees because of the unmistakable similarities in conflict resolutions between our two species. Imagine for a moment in 2003, two human females (or males) in a heated verbal conflict over a parking space at the local mall; now imagine them resolving their conflict by both tearing off each other's clothes and rubbing their genitals together until they both reach sexual orgasm. Guess what? No more conflict over the parking space.
This is a most unlikely scenario between modern humans; in which case, logic then leads us back to the chimpanzee as our most likely pre-ancestor. As for the male chimpanzees, they are stuck in an endless cycle of physical violence and strong verbal assaults against each other in order to determine the hierarchical ranking in their local environment which leads to better access to females. In regards to humans, we still have conflicts as I mentioned above, but we are much more evolved and go about our conflict resolutions in a "civilized" manner. Human males do not outwardly fight with other males for access to females except in rare occasions and in locales where sexual copulation possibilities are high (Perhaps at a disco or nightclub that caters to twenty-something's, and where the participants are heavily influenced by alcohol or drugs). The reason for the difference between our two species is the success of the human female in "changing" (evolving) the mating patterns dramatically from her female chimpanzee counterpart. When it comes to having a choice between suitors, the chimpanzee female is limited because the males are very dominant and usually gain access by brute force. It is a common known fact that in some chimpanzee groups the female has had sex with every member of the male troupe, and not because she desires this outcome. Science has argued that this maneuver "confuses" who is the father of the future child, and the female hopes she can depend on all the males for assistance when the child arrives. Close studies done in the future by graduate students will confirm that there are cultural differences amongst various Chimpanzee groups in different local environments regarding sexual mechanisms, because in some locations and when a particular female chimpanzee does not want to mate with a particular male, she can raise quite a loud protest so that all in the group knows of her plight and can avoid the copulation. Even though the Alpha male rules through physical strength, it is still easier to maintain that position with full cooperation of all in his group, and acquiescing to the virulent female may be worth backing off as it gives the impression that he is "a nice guy" and worthy of leading the group.
Now this "sexual choice" is precisely the advantage that the human female has over her chimpanzee cousin. The female chimpanzee, when in estrus, (ovulating and ready for conception) displays an enlarged, bright red angeogenital sac that surrounds both sides of her sexual opening. Science has not yet determined how the human female has traversed her evolutionary adaptation, and as a male, I have sworn off the temptation to study the phenomenon awaiting studies by female scientists. My speculation is that there were "loser" females who did not display a sac as bright enough, large enough, or symmetrical enough, to attract alpha males and were relegated to the sidelines with the "thinking, weak males" who could not compete physically with the alpha and beta males that dominated their inner circles; it was here on the sidelines with whom these females mated. I argue also that these females had greater persuasive powers over these "thinking" males, and required more commitment and resources from these males before copulation (read, more sexual choice). Hence the division between humans and chimpanzees began, with the chimpanzees remaining in the jungle and the humans drifting off in search of food and becoming human in the process by emphasizing the use of their brains over brawn.
What do women want?
Now, all this above cleverly introduces us to a fascinating theory that was advanced in 2000 by Geoffrey Miller in his brilliant book, The Mating Mind. (Read my book review: [http://www.evoyage.com/Book%20Reviews/MatingMind.html). In a nutshell, Mr. Miller's theory argues that everything you see, hear, touch, and smell in your modern world is the result of sexual selection. All these physical things -- skyscrapers, poems, art, personal wealth, etc. -- were created by males attempting to attract females in order to pass their genes. Miller tried to have us imagine of all these physical objects as peacock tails that represented a handicap resource, and the more resources a male acquires or achieves without losing out to a competitor was a sign of his fitness, and thus, a valuable selection priority for the female that would be best for her offspring. In my opinion, the theory is a bit of a stretch of the imagination, but is still very plausible. The minor flaw is that not all that "stuff" out there today in 2003 is the result of just males creating various trinkets in which to attract females. After all, females are creative and competitive in our modern world, and most no longer want to stay at home, tend to the children, and bake cookies for their men -- and this is important! -- many, many, still do.
But what Miller is attempting to teach us is that in the world of our ancestral female, which established the architecture of the early human brain, what was best for the female's children at that time was a male who had more resources then the next male -- and this selection criteria was not missed by the males; it created the competitive world of jockeying for positions in various hierarchies and we see the results of that competition today in the accumulation of personal property resources . What is important here in evolutionary terms is that the female took more control of the mating process, and instead of being totally dominated and forced into copulation by physical force, she refused to be restricted by her limited choices. By changing her own physiology and the mental maneuvering required to make males more committal in time and resources for her offspring, the female forged our ancestors into becoming more human. You have just been initiated into the Darwinian Feminists view of evolution. It has been my strong argument for several years now -- see my online book, Man In The Mist http://www.evoyage.com/ManInTheMist/ManInTheMist2.htm -- that the female has been more in control of the evolutionary process then has previously been credited in regards to the early development of the human mind, and I feel that nature is merely waiting for her daughter to take control of her destiny.
Momma is always right
However, in the meantime, the female has selected the male to do the heavy lifting, and the downside to picking the most aggressive and highest-ranking male, in combination with protective inclusive fitness, has created an "overkill" of male dominance throughout history. This biological preference of the female to "give to best" to her children has succeeded - perhaps too well - and has come at a heavy cost to beta females -- i.e., welfare moms in America, "untouchable" females in India, etc -- and as a result, so have their beta children suffered with them. But one can strongly argue that natural selection wanted it this way, with the "crème-de-la-crème" rising to the top of our societies and having the results "trickle down" to the masses. The alpha female elites in today's society will argue very convincingly that they have benefited society the most by picking and choosing only the best males. But one can counter-argue whether the female of the future wishes the gap to continue once she becomes fully aware that all children are equal is God's eyes, and that it is she who is responsible for poor children being left behind by allowing the males to run the details. We await her choice.
Ozzie and Harriet
By maneuvering the male into volunteering more commitment, something else was being created: the core family unit and the innate biology of kinship that swirls around that entity. With this increased commitment, the male found it easy to become the protector of the lineage of genes that he was certain he fathered. Instead of one entity claiming a comfort zone around itself, the mental process now included all from the same genetic fountainhead; thus a clan was born. I am not going to get into the biological chemical markers of kin recognition in this essay, but let's just say that it provided the "family glue" necessary for the next phase of human evolution: the long trek out of Africa and the eventual domestication of plants and animals which gave rise to the establishment of our early cities.
I'm going to fast forward here from 100,000 years ago to about 10,000, and imagine a fictional moment in time when both males, females, and children were tired of the annual trek necessitated in the search for food in our human nomadic past. It is at this time in human history that the domestication of plants and animals became a permanent fixture. Credit for the discovery as to whom "invented" domesticated agriculture, and thus humankind's stationery lifestyle, is not know for certain, but since recent observations of nomad tribes inform us that the gathering by the female generates about 75% of the food sources for these tribes, then it would seem logical (except to past male scientists and religious leaders who recorded history) to expect that the female would be the "expert" on what grew yearly and where. Not to mention, that recent observations also tell us that the female does the packing and unpacking of tents, non-perishable foods, utensils, and nose-wiping of the children during any nomadic journey. This results in logic dictating the rising necessity for remaining in one locale.
Well, you may ask, if women are doing 75% the work to provide the clan with food, then that must mean that the human male is only contributing 25% of the food source; then in order "to pay for his keep," the other 75% of the effort must be devoted to protection or aggression against other groups that may threaten the family unit, clan, tribe or village. And that is exactly what has evolved, and social scientists have labeled this occasional act of being called upon to perform these aggressive acts of hunting, defense, or predation as, "the public good."
By observing nomadic tribes of today, science knows that the act of bringing big game back to base camp for all to share is an exciting moment and one could easily see how this could have developed into one of the first forms of public good. And even through fruits, nuts, and roots, if properly prepared can be delicious and nutritious; they also are easy to gather, and thus, do not make interesting conservation around the campfire. Capturing big game, on the other hand, makes for wonderful campfire conservation because the feats told could be considered worthy of a "hero" or "big man." Since the only witnesses to the capture of the "dangerous" game were the bonded males who set out together to capture the game, perhaps, this could be the foundation of modern bonded male's braggadocio. You see, the tales could be a form of "future earnings power" potential display directed at any available female within listening range, and thus, have an evolutionary incentive for its origin. But at the same time, the female would have to develop an ability to detect whether the product is real or phony. Ah, the battle of the sexes begins.
Now let's nudge this concept of "public good"
which includes hunting for food and defending the clan just a little bit further
up into the history timeline to where civilization is well established. Let
us arrive at the point where the concept of accumulated real property is also
equated to having vast armies that roam territories under the will and whim
of emperors to acquire those resources. Let me now quote from Dr. Paul Rubin's
book, Darwinian Politics, (Read my book
You will now get a better understanding of how these aggressive modern males called "militants" have evolved from everyday tribal members to the status of "heroes and defenders." "...contributions to defense or offense would have also been a public good. The main form of contribution to this public good would probably have been rewards to individuals, largely young males, who participated in defense or predation, and evidence indicates that such rewards are in fact forthcoming. That is, the public good would have been the benefits provided to warriors to induce them to participate in militaristic activities. Thus, while individuals may have participated in defensive or offensive military activities for private motives, the reason that private motives would have been available is because such participation brought public rewards. Cooperation by young males in offensive or defensive activities is a form of altruism that would have survived a group selection process. These preferences survive as participation in gangs or sports and are an important reason why young males are a major component of military forces." p.66.
You see, this modern group of Middle American Radicals as described 22 years ago in The New Right Papers are basically the same group identified by Dr. Rubin in our pre-human ancestral societies. The only difference is that today, we as a species, are much more populated, diversified, and living way beyond the age where our primate ancestors turned to dust; and thus, a smaller percentage of the population is neither sought to perform, nor needed for aggressive predation and defense. Even though the percentage of the population has dramatically reduced the need for warriors, what has remained unchanged is the innate biological predisposition for aggressiveness found in all men that make them "suitable for the job."
One very important universal found in all the armies around the world is the close connection between age and aggressiveness in their male combatants. Advertisers in our modern world constantly seek the holy grail of the 18-34 demographic because that is the age group that consumes the most in the beginning of their life's journey -- and it gets really serious when it becomes time to seek mates through clothes, cars, marriage rituals; the actual setting up of nests -- real estate, furniture, kitchen utensils, entertainment centers, etc. And how did our male ancestors' acquire those things to attract the female? They did it by taking risks - hunting and war. And nothing has changed for the young male today: If you need solid empirical evidence for this age/aggression/risk-taking connection, just go the actuary tables for automobile insurers to find who has the most accidents and in what age bracket. Low and behold, the male gender between the ages of 17-26 rises way beyond all other group classifications. And why? Is it because their reflexes are worse then other drivers? No. It is because they are the gender and age bracket that takes the greatest risks - a strong evolutionary holdover from our past.
And not by coincidence, the age 19 is considered to be the optimum age of physical prowess in today's American military. This age, according to popular culture, is also considered to be the age when a young male's sexual drive peaks. Although no official pronouncements are available that I am aware of, the military has not informed the public that this is a "problem." Surely, the military can't be completely unaware of the affect that being cooped up in close quarters would have on the "sexual tensions" of its troops when sexual desires are in full bloom. It is my firm suspicion that the military has officially fudged over the "females-in-combat" debate precisely because of this reason by arguing that the female's presence would be a "disruptive" factor in "troop unity" (the same argument has been applied to male homosexuals). From my own personal memory of enlisted military life, the only thing discussed amongst my fellow mates concerning our sexual drive "problem" was the open secret that the military establishment was putting some mysterious anti-sexual depressant in the mashed potatoes. 35 years ago, there certainly weren't medical names like, Cyproterone, Medroxyprogesterone, Leuprolide, or Goserilin being bantered about during our daily "bull" sessions.
Although the military establishment attempts to portray itself as one of the moral forces that keeps our great country together, it is my humble opinion that it also knows that it must allow for some release of these sexual tensions or things would get totally out of hand. In foreign ports, the military has always kept a less than keen eye on establishments that cater to the prurient interests of its combatants. After all, it's the foreign country's "problem," and not the troops fault. And during times of major conflicts, how can anyone not have seen the news files of entertainment shows that were given to boost the moral of the troops? Remember comedian Bob Hope's famous lines during WWII, Korea, and the Vietnam War when he would introduce onto the stage young female starlets in their early 20s dressed in very enticing outfits? His performance would go something like this: "OK guys, it's time to introduce to you the real reason why you're out here fighting for the USA." The expendable starlet de jour would appear, entering stage left or right, followed by a loud eruption of agreement from the overwhelmingly male audience.
What I am focusing on is the overwhelming biological force and need for the sexual release needed for young males and how these "needs" transform themselves into modern human behavior. On the importance of sexual access, let me again quote Dr. Rubin: "Sexual access to the females of the defeated enemy is a standard benefit of victory in combat, both in the past and often today (Ghiglieri 2000; Low 2001). Thus, there was an evolutionary basis for young males being willing to join in fighting and that behavior persists. War in the EEA (Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness -- 100,000 years ago) could be a rational strategy, both for individual warriors and for the band or group. Pressure from this sort of conflict provided selection pressure for increased intelligence. No doubt war was and perhaps remains an important force of selection among humans." p. 45.
If I were writing a lengthy book, which I am not, it is at this point where I would go on a tantrum about how ridiculous the "beneficial war" concept could be to natural selection. I realize that my fellow evolutionists configure war in terms of battles fought thousands of years ago without the "assistance" of weapons of mass destruction, and focus on calculations that if "our" side inflicts 20% more casualties on "their" side, and then seize females as property, inseminate them, and then consider the statistical outcome from those "matings;" then perhaps, there would be a natural selection "advantage" of war. Buffalo droppings. I argue that war has always been, as it is now, about a group of males kicking their opponent's ass and feeling good about the outcome when it goes their way. The cherry on top of the ice cream comes when you get to "own" your opponent's personal "property," including the female non-combatants. Early recorded history is rich in detail about males exchanging females for cows, horses, and "things,"
But, perhaps it goes deeper than just seizing and controlling personal property; defiling your opponent's female also has had a long history as another "instrument" of war. The humiliation inflicted upon female non-combatants, being not only dominated and controlled, but raped, is mentally devastating. I argue that, not only is this act done as a mechanism to inflict horror, but is also designed as the "ultimate" insult message to one's enemy. Impregnating your enemy's women with your genes sends the maximum message notifying them of their new hierarchal position -- that there is none. It literally means, "we not only dominate you, but you no longer exist as an entity at all." The history books are filled with incidents where male warriors have left behind their genetic markers; historians and philosophers alike shake their heads in disbelief again and again that these events continue to happen despite the outrages expressed by all humankind.
The evildoer that lurks in the forest
Since we are discussing an innate behavior found in all men, let me emphatically stress that aggressive male militants can also be found in white collar CEO positions or in responsible governmental positions as well. Obliviously these are not blue-collar workers that do the aggressive physical acts of war, but their direct orders can put into motion events that could create those results. What these alpha neocon males share with their MARs beta brethren is an innate aggressive male ATTITUDE. Their whole mental attitude revolves around "winning" a debate, an election, or a war. Establishing dominance over other groups and forcing them into aggressive combat or forcing them to back down into a submissive position gives them the greatest pleasure because it sets off a cascade of body and mind chemistry that "feels good" (much more on this in just a bit). These conservative neocons may have sugar-coated their reasons for going to war, (the evil monster in the dark forest and is about to use very bad weapons to harm us) but in my opinion, the invasion was merely a cover for a greater goal: Total dominance of the target country through "regime change" in the social hierarchical structure of the invaded country. From this position, a winning country could control all the resources of the invaded country, control the culture produced within that territory in the present and in the future, which in turn, would control the social norms. Being in this dominate position, the controlling dominates can have a huge impact on the neighboring region for years to come.
Hey laddie, want to go to sea and see the world?
In any economy that has its ups and downs, there is always a surplus of young males available that will have difficultly finding jobs. But when the economy suffers, as America and the world has performed since 9/11; the surplus pool of unemployed young beta males swells proportionately. In June, 2003, the Dept. of Labor reported that the unemployment rate among teenagers aged 16-19 reached 19.3%. The New York Times online, July 14, 2003, Teenagers Facing Hard Competition for Summer Jobs, by Kate Zernike, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/14/national/14JOBS.html?. This pool of available undereducated males is sometimes too hard to resist for some alpha policy makers and military planners who watch closely population trends as part of their overall long-term strategies. As a young male who is about set to leave home to make his mark in the world, the military is one of the few bright spots available in a sagging economy. (I speak from personal experience, as this was the path that I took in 1963 to leave home).
OK, so here you are, you're a young male with no college education and you may have gotten your teenage girlfriend pregnant. You want to do the decent thing and stand up for your responsibilities and support your family, but you quickly look around in your local environment and find bleak job prospects. Thanks to globalization, the factory job with good wages where your father and older brother used to work no longer exists; and what jobs do remain, don't pay enough to support a family. What's a laddie to do? Well, you do what other people with limited education do, and that usually means that you search your local newspaper ads. And here is a perfect example of an actual advertisement that just might "presents itself" at the right time and save our young pre-warrior. It is from The Sunday Denver Post, June 29th 2003 issue; page 5G, found under section #1205 -- Help Wanted.
AMERICA'S AIR FORCE
Jobs available in over 150 careers, plus:
" Up to $18,000 enlistment bonus
" Up to $10,000 student loan repayment
" Up to 100% tuition assistance
" High tech training
High school grads age 17-27 or prior service members from any branch, call 1-800-423-USAF or visit AIRFORCE.COM
[If you look closer, the logo strongly resembles a neck-worn medal]
CROSS INTO THE BLUE
Along with the excitement of leaving home, the lure of a hefty cash bonus, steady money in one's wallet, plenty of food, a roof over one's head -- and for the first time in their lives -- the possibility of funds being available to pursue the dream of a higher education makes military life a highly attractive path. The unfortunate side of choosing this path is that one may lose one's life in combat if a major conflict arises; although the possibilities of this occurring in recent years is very unlikely due to the tremendous advances in technology. In my opinion, the major disadvantage of this lifestyle is the undeniable fact that the military is a very strict hierarchical society where individual freedoms are minimal and compliance to the various hierarchies by all subordinates is mandatory. The major problem with maintaining this social order is that creativity and progress take a back seat to Machiavellian delusions of grandeur and abuses by renegade commanders under the guise of maintaining order and "unity." In this environment, creative thinkers need not apply.
All branches of the American military are divided into two major groups, commissioned and enlisted personal, and each of these two major groups are also distinctly divided into their own hierarchies; it is the same for all five branches of the U.S. military. As for the loss of individuality, this compliance to one's "superior" -- both written and unspoken -- creates an alpha male's dream world -- give an order and it is strictly followed by beta males -- regardless of the rank and circumstance, and I strongly argue that this "do-or-else" environment helps to perpetuate itself. What is occurring during the "ordering around stage" is the pre-avalanche of innate chemistry that all males feed upon to "feel good." (This is very important, and I will get to it soon). You must understand that ordering everyone around to do one's bidding is an extension of their personal male "power." This is wonderful if the deeds ordered are for all to benefit, but It is also the curse of humankind that some dictators, politicians, and military generals get carried away with their obsession to use this power placed before them; the chemical rush of ordering people to do your bidding can be additive.
"Thanks for helping out."
So let's quickly rejoin our young male who has gotten his girlfriend pregnant and joins the military as an enlisted person. Do you think that there might be a bit of gratefulness and loyalty that springs from that the solid fact that this institution has helped him stand up to his obligations? Do you think that a person would feel grateful about being given a cash bonus to spend anyway they wished? Can you perceive the concept that a aggressive male would be loyal to an organization that feeds, clothes, and houses his family? And how do you think a subordinate would feel if that institution underwrote his higher education? Following an alpha male's orders and showing loyalty is an important point -- once again recall my remarks about Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and Hitler. These historical events could not have taken place unless the beta males, these MARs, did the actual hard, physical labor behind these events. . And, here's an added bonus that comes with our young, loyal individual. Again, I quote Dr. Rubin:
"Fighters are generally young males. Young males have several characteristics that make them good soldiers, in addition to strength. They are easily persuaded or indoctrinated by official statements or propaganda. They also form groups easily -- whether military platoons, sports teams, or gangs." p. 44.
In early 2003, at the exact moment when I read that line about "easily persuaded or indoctrinated by official statements..," I had my television on to provide background noise. I was tuned to FOX television news and they were broadcasting a round table discussion with several guests repeating over and over again the reasons why we should invade Iraq. The television show and the quote above merely confirmed my convictions about the MARs group that I have targeted for discussion; that this target group can be easily persuaded to do a "public good" if the arguments are generally persuasive and repeated enough. I argue that the propaganda strewn forth by the elite hierarchy on this show was appealing to the chemical male heritage of competitiveness to establish the high ground in hierarchical positioning. One could easily brush aside all "moral" arguments and just listen to the tone and passion of the message: They were calling for a "competition" with the evildoer Saddam. Here is a great quote from Newsweek magazine concerning the relentless one-upmanship of human male competition (and what do you think war is really all about?). "When men prepare for a fight, or even a chess match, their bodies produce a surge of testosterone, a hormone known for boosting body mass and aggressiveness. 'The testosterone level peaks during the contest,' says Harvard anthropologist Richard Wrangham. 'Afterward it stays high in the winner but declines in the loser.' In other words, our glands are set to push us into winnable conflicts and to discourage foolish ambitions. Coincidence?" Newsweek, June 16, 2003, p. 68.
This is really important -- pay attention!
What is at work here is the basic chemical mix brought on by competition and how our mind responds to those chemical changes. This chemical mix occurs in all humans, but overwhelmingly in males. Besides the elevated testosterone levels mentioned above, we are also rewarded with "feel good" chemicals. I quote as close as possible from the BBC Television series, Human Instinct written and narrated by Professor Robert Winston which aired in the summer of 2003. I purchased the book that corresponded to the televised series to get accurate citations, but the information below was not in the book, presumably, because it is so recent. . You can access the BBC web site for more information about the television series, and I deeply regret the lack of citations in the book and the sale of the video is not currently available. I also do not know how long the internet link will stay, but here it is: http://www.bbcfactual.co.uk/human_instinct.htm
[The visual presented in the television series is a scene from a boxing match where one of two boxers senses that he is about to win -- but he also has received a broken rib] "Our bodies are designed to give us a massive kick when we are winning. Whether it is getting a job, being top of our class, or winning our Olympic goal; our responses are the same the world over. When we are close to winning, our bodies and minds work in harmony to make sure that victory is sweet. As soon as we realize that the win is within our grasp, our focus gets shaper, our reflexes faster - we feel unbeatable -- and we get the full reward. When we get that first taste of victory, the brain chemical dopamine stimulates the pleasure center of our brain, creating a profound sense of well-being. Next, endorphins rush through our bodies fighting exhaustion and making us feel euphoric. This is the body's natural high. Endorphins do one more remarkable thing: Even though the boxer has broken a rib, he will barely feel a thing because endorphins block pain by stopping the sensation from reaching our spinal cord and brain. But that's not all - there's more to winning then just a buzz. Adrenaline from the adrenal gland near the kidneys and testosterone flood through our bloodstream; they've already given us strength during the competition and now they keep us alert and speed our recovery. We breath more deeply, and our heart rate increases taking in more oxygen rich blood to our brains and muscles. Now we are primed and ready to take on the world again."
And at this moment I want everyone to recall the general mood in America when the statute of Saddam Hussein was being torn down. Do you think that there was a bit a swagger and cockiness to everyone's demeanor? Could you hear a tone of "I told you so" and "we're number one" in news commentator's voices that bordered on "braggadocio?" How about those male conservative talk show hosts? Do you think they were "pumped up" over the apparent victory?
This is even more important then the chemistry of winning - Pay Attention Again!
But science has also just recently made a startling discovery in the chemical mix between mind and body in addition to competition and winning. What they have found is that what we humans strive for something more powerful than attaining victory, and that is, avoiding possible defeat. To put it into an evolutionary nut shell: If we engage in violent competition, it could lead to our deaths -- and well, that's the end of the old ball game -- a genetic dead end. Once again, I quote Professor Winston from the television series, Human Instinct: [Once again, the scenario is a boxing match, only this time, our main character knows that he is about to lose the match].
"We are natural competitors, and this competitiveness forces us to constantly strive for more. However, because we have evolved a body that rewards us with a powerful chemical reward every time we compete and win, we keep on striving for more. But evidence is now emerging that suggests that there is a more powerful instinct that keeps up striving us upward and forward. One of the most potent motivations we possess is the fear of failure. Sure, losing feels bad, and not without good reason - the results could be disastrous - losing is a more powerful and enduring experience than the rewards of winning could ever be. Failure feels terrible; and to understand why, we need to look inside our own bodies. Losing is overwhelming; when we start to lose, our reward system is switched off. The feel good chemicals such as endorphins and dopamine that kept us going during the fight begin to ebb away. We enter a downward spiral that makes losing an almost certainty. Suddenly, we feel every ounce of our exhaustion, every bit of our pain. Every single muscle ache, unlike the victor, becomes apparent once we realize we have lost; and this triggers the release of the stress hormone cortisone. When mixed with adrenaline already flowing through our bloodstream, we feel anxious and even frightened. And if the lost is catastrophic, a primitive response we share with reptiles kicks in; we become immobilized. The bodies' nonessential functions shut down in order to protect the brain; the vegas nerve slows our heart; suddenly, blood flows out of the gut and we get that sinking feeling in the pit of our stomach; our muscles slacken; we lose control of our limbs [we pass out]. But our body has one final function to teach us a lesson - every time we lose; the hippocampus in the brain is stimulated making sure we remember the loss forever. And at the center of our emotions, the amygdala, fuses that memory to a profound sense of misery. All this creates a powerful reminder of failure to put us off from making the same mistake again."
Is that powerful knowledge or what? So now you understand why all of us hate to lose, but in particular, because of some male's overabundance in having the aggressive hormone testosterone, the affect is profound in these males who just can't stand the possibility of losing any competition. As mentioned previously, if we look closely at our society today we find very few males actually engaged in mortal combat; therefore, because of these innate tendencies, there is the strong possibility that there exists ATTITUDE SUBSTITUTES for this need to strive for this "feel good" chemical mix that substitutes for "winning and not losing action" from an individual perspective. In other words, "aggressive" political males could merely be "bluffing" their way though a political campaign by sounding aggressive, and showing outward "potential" for violence without actually engaging in the violent act in order to defeat a "weak" political candidate. So, what this means to our species, and in particular to the beta males of our focus group in 2003, is that even though they are not directly evolved in any actual physical competition every day, there are still constant predispositions deep within male memories putting pressure to bear in our modern environment to seek them out or avoid them. And that means a very strong tendency to affiliate with potential "winners" over "losers."
But in seeking or avoiding these chemical inputs, we sometimes are faced with the reality that we can not achieve them on our own and it would help if we sought the assistance of others. And because we live in groups, one mechanism that we humans take for granted is our innate ability to form alliances with other humans. Sometimes these alliances come naturally, as in a kin allying with another kin -- such as a mother helping her daughter learn the origins of Greek words in preparation for a spelling bee contest. Or in the case of two beta males united by the understanding that winning a "conflict" is to their mutual advantage, bonding in the gym and spotting for each other while they lift weights in preparation for an American football game.
But then, something really unique occurs in humans, which is not found in the animal kingdom. This is similar to the inward ATTITUDE SUBSTITE I mentioned earlier, but this is the unique mental ability to "outwardly attach to," "project to," "identify with, "desire to align with" other groups, or organizations to "do battle for us." I argue that this evolved from the human ability of projecting empathy, but evolved to assimilate a "group" identified as an "individual." Also recall the acknowledged fact above that our ancestors also saw the advantages in allowing groups of young males, not only go off to hunt for big game, but also to perform the risky business of defending the ancestral group from "the evil that lurks in the forest." This attachment of affection may have occurred enough times to be part of our human mental module architecture, but I doubt that science is even close from isolating such a module. It may have evolved out of the human tendency to "free ride" and let others do to the task at hand because humans recognized the obvious natural selection advantage of letting others do the "hard work" and take the risks. It may have also evolved from the advantage that some males saw in 'taking the aggressive path beyond the kin group" and seeking resources outside that group in order to attract the female. It is possible that through the generations, evolution could also have favored the inbreeding of the knowledge that "allowing others do the hard work," becomes easier if there are resource transfer incentives for those individuals attached to the task. In my humble opinion, I argue that it is a combination of all of the above, reinforced by the cultural social norms at each local environment as history progressed.
But our brains can only do this mental trick of "attachment" with other individuals or groups unless we are first, physically and consciously aware of them. We are aware of other individuals in our family, clan, work mates, religious, or civic groups in our limited capabilities. But what is new to our species is that the vast media conglomerates now allow us to be aware of the vast multitudes of other groups over vast regions of our planet. But right now, on an international scale, all that we see is "us" and "them," and usually it is in context of political conflict (the Iraq "liberation"). On a more local level -- let's just keep it at the American national level -- nothing comes close to raising the chemical "feel good" mix of our target group on a daily basis more then following, and "attaching" emotions to the daily "combat" of professional sports teams -- and an important note -- it is very profitable for a small groups of alpha elites, adding fuel to the fire behind their existence.
So much competition, so little time
If someone from the future were to ask me what I thought was culturally significant in my lifetime, I would have to reply that it would be the rise of professional sports from a few major teams into vast multi-overlapping organizations of male-dominated competitiveness; in fact, there are now more sports teams competing which each other than at any other time in history, creating a decline in per capita viewers, and as a result, slowing capital influx due to the duel effort of paying player's salaries while waiting for the expansion plans to reach full profitability. The second most significant development would be the massive explosion in the capacity of the communications media -- almost to the point of there being so much excess capacity that some experts have pointed to this environment as one of the major causes for the telecom collapse in the late 1990s. In my viewpoint, these two venues seemed to have found each other in the early 21 Century in crude attempts to solve their mutual monetary problems. And it appears that the marriage of the two has been a success as expanded play schedules are now way beyond the old seasonal time slots (Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter) and in addition, they can be found being broadcast 24/7.
Follow the big one
This marriage of sports and the drive to have the most possible eyeballs per capita to view sporting events does have a Holy Grail event that I am sure is driving part of the team expansions. These minor beta and charlie teams also "look up" to an alpha example. What happens every third or fourth week in January in America? THE SUPER BOWL. Social observers now tell us that the Super Bowl has become such a phenomenon, that millions tune in "just to see the commercials." But what really is being promoted is nothing more than an elaborate cockfight between large aggressive males designed to attach the "winning, pumped-up testosterone, endorphins, and dopamine chemical rush" to product brands and place them into the deep memories of each consumer. I don't believe that advertisers are totally aware of the biological/chemical science involved yet behind their successes, but they follow their sales numbers, crunch the numbers, and "know what works." It is at this point (if this were a book) that I would expand on the popularity of yellow journalism, reality shows, entertainment news, and televised talk shows (i.e. Jerry Springer, with staged conflicts that erupt in violent conflicts -- once again, producers follow the statistics and "know what works" to attract viewers) and how each one can be traced back to our ancestral chemical roots -- but I want to stick to the masculine world in which I live and what seems to motivate these militant radicals and the political theme of this essay.
Beyond the obvious advantage of "rooting for the home team" and getting that chemical rush that we discussed, there could be an even deeper area being accessed in the human mind -- and that could be the possibility of witnessing human blood being spilled. It is common knowledge amongst every school aged-boy that blood was spilled in the spectacles produced in the Roman Coliseum some 2000 years ago. Lessons learned from the Bible and the entertainment outputs from Hollywood have given us blood-spilling tales of individual combat and tiger-tearing-flesh-persecutions of Christians; and don't even get me started on modern teenage horror films. And there can be no doubts in my mind that the more popular an organized sport seems to be today is where there is the greatest possibility of blood being spilled; i.e., American football, Ice hockey, European football (at least in the stands), and Boxing -- and then falling in fan popularity till one gets to cerebral-dependent competitions like spelling bees or chess tournaments. Hmmm....are chess tournaments even broadcast on TV?
Science, of course, is still investigating the human nature behind the fascination between these ancient blood sports and the intense interest shown by spectators today, but the studied consensus that seems to be emerging is that there are lessons to be learned by the viewer on how to avoid "blood events" from happening to them, thus, extending survival. A perfect example is the "rubber-necking" involved in observing automobile accidents happening to others as we travel on our highway traffic lanes. There are citations available that show traffic can be backed for miles during rush hours as travelers slow down and view the accident that did not happen to them and cause ripple "bottle neck" delays in the traffic flow. Do we attempt to see "sensational bloody" vistas for the gore alone?; or are we trying to learn how the accident occurred so that it does not happen to us? Science is strongly leaning to the latter.
Battles win Babes
(Or, how evolution and American culture has brought us to the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue ideal of the perfect aggressive male's lifestyle)
By now, I'm sure my colleagues in the evolutionary community understand where I am going with this essay attempting to identify these aggressive alpha and beta males and what predispositions activate their behavioral motivations; and the ultimate goal. Thousands of generations ago, it was violent physical competition rewarded with "feel good victory chemistry," combined with the even stronger "avoiding defeat through failure memory chemistry," to secure the ultimate goal of passing of one's genes through access to the receptive female. Science has yet to firmly connect all the dots, but I strongly argue that as a male, I can relate to you that one of the strongest chemical mixes that a young man can feel occurs when the gene transfer copulation is finally consummated. And I argue that it is the primary reason why the planet is swooning over competitive sports as an alternative for large scale violence that has paraded throughout the human male's recorded history as "public good." But what is only being addressed in hushed evolutionary circles, is that this still leaves the sexual culmination of those competitive outcomes being unfulfilled. How we, as a species, should deal with this issue in the future is the greatest challenge for the 21st Century thinkers who wisely use the evolutionary perspective.
How poppy did it
It is not a scientifically proven fact yet, but science is leaning very heavily in favor of the argument that our human species evolved from the Chimpanzees based primarily on the competitive nature of the male chimpanzee. These males are very aggressive in terms of jockeying for hierarchical positions, and the results of their efforts bear them out -- their physical prowess is rewarded with multiple sexual partners, and as a result, the "ammunition," or sperm required to perform this task is found in abundance in the large testicles that males of the Chimpanzee species carry. The major difference between our two species is the modern human female's refusal to be sexually coerced ("raped") like her Chimpanzee cousin. And as a result, one of the greatest mysteries of evolutionary science yet to be discovered is how the Chimpanzee female transformed her bright physical angeogenital sac -- that lights up like a neon sign to signal the optimum time for conception -- to one of total concealment in the human female. Perhaps science is still reluctant to publish detailed studies of this transformation for it would focus on the female genital areas -- an "area" considered appalling by the conservative fundamentals, but this physical transformation of the female has also brought a transformation in the size of the human male's testicle and penis sizes. The testicles have been reduced because the human male is not as promiscuous as his chimpanzee cousin, and the penis size has grown because the female has "chosen" the larger penis as desirable to the chimpanzee's pencil-sized penis. This is because the human female no longer "allows" the behavior of being sexually coerced, and because her desire for greater "choice" has driven the natural selection process through sexual selection to our modern state. Perhaps one day soon we will find courageous female scientists "choosing" to publish their own studies on the internet how this physical transformation occurred (hint, hint).
Although the modern human male is not as aggressive in his competitive behavior for hierarchical positioning as his primate cousin, his behavior is still similar because the goal of sexual fulfillment is the same. The sex drive in most young human males is very strong, and unfortunately, because of the dominating "suggestive" nature that surrounds the young male in his world in 2003, he may be getting the "incorrect" social norm input that his female contemporaries do not deserve any more consideration in mating process than their female chimpanzee cousins. What I am driving at is this: Is the surrounding social norm environment in 2003, which seems to cater more and more to the desires of young beta males, highly slanted toward the suggestive nature that the female is the prize for winning, through competition, the hierarchical positions similar to his male Chimpanzee cousin? It's an updated version of the "women as objects" argument of male-dominated sexism that feminists argued against in the 1970s. However, in this case, the argument has a boost from science as seen through the evolutionary perspective; and with the advances in the biological sciences, the argument is stronger than ever.
From my 23 year observations derived from being embedded in my own blue-collar world, I can report back to you that the primary talking points of my blue collar male colleagues' daily conversations in the past, and now, revolve around two subjects: SPORTS AND FEMALE BODY PARTS. It is so pervasive that I call it the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue Ideal View of Life. My sincerest apologies to the founders and current editors of Sports Illustrated, because I do not want to give you the impression that these fine people have done our society a great social wrong. They have merely tapped into a rich innate vein of ancestral male predispositions (of who is up or down in a particular competition); along with bringing millions of people information and enjoyment that interjects a ray of hope in an otherwise bleak world. And they have done it very successfully (in fact, the magazine just celebrated its 50th birthday in July of 2003). However, those in the publication industry can't deny that one of the contributing factors in the magazine's success is due to the publication of its swimsuit issue.
This singular yearly event is eagerly anticipated in my male-dominated blue-collar world, and in my profession as a letter-carrier it presents my fellow workers a "first line peek" at the issue before it is delivered to residents; if there is a particular "good" photo, some of my co-workers even pass the magazine around to make sure that other males don't miss the suggestive photo. (I don't look at the issue myself). The "buzz" that this magazine has created, and the surrounding "industry" that has grown up around it -- wall calendars, desk calendars, computer screen savers, etc., -- has not gone unnoticed by the rest of the publishing industry. (A quick apology to the reader: as of this writing I do not have the beginning date for the start of the swimsuit issue, but I believe it started in the late 1970s or early 1980s). To make a long story short, the sudden introduction of females posing in sexy swimwear in a major national pictorial weekly sports magazine that featured masculine competition reportage in the slow months of late February -- when the wealthy populations of the northern hemisphere long for the arrival of Spring -- was a phenomenal success. All the photos are usually set in "warm" climates and are associated with water, which, as we all know, offers relief from the sun's heat. One can categorize the majority of the swimsuits as mostly two-pieced in various designs, and the female models are usually photographed in a "reflective, passive" mode where there is little eye contact between the model and the viewer.
And now enters another success phenomenon in American culture that has tapped into a similar venue: Victoria's Secret. To those living under a rock, or in non-northern hemisphere locations, Victoria's Secret is a mail-order catalog company that sells underwear for women: And guess what? Not just underwear, but suggestive underwear specifically designed to highlight and accentuate parts of the female body to stimulate male sexual desire. You see, this catalog is not aimed at males, but is aimed at females who want to attract males by "advertising" their bodies in the best possible attractive mode. What the catalog has done is to tap into the success of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue of female display as a "reward" for conquest into accepting the behavior as desirable for women. Because what the catalog represents is nothing more than creating demand for the best item to wear to accentuate that part of the female body that is being competed for by males to attract the "highest bidder?" And if females did not want these items, then wouldn't the catalog be a failure?
The designers at Victoria's Secret know what they are doing. Most of the "bustenhalter" items highlighted as the "stars" of the catalog show that the "miracle bra" lifts up and squeezes the two female breasts upward and together at the same time, thus projecting an image of youth and fertility -- two major objectives in male sexual desire. And, as for most of the "star" underpants shown that cover the female genital areas, one can easily see that they are usually semi-opaque, but still allowing enough of the genital area to be seen as a "promise of things to come." This of course, is designed to tap into the first stage of copulation mechanisms, after the second and third stages of sexual desire have been "activated." (There are three stages -- Lust -- Attraction -- Attachment [after Helen Fisher). The entire upper and lower "package" presented in the catalog undoubtedly helps the female send the best reproductive signal of "availability" to males viewing the items. The human female may have lost her physical angeogenital "advertisement" sac that still haunts her primate cousin, but she still has retained the mental ability to "advertise her availability for copulation;" she still knows innately, and through social norms what "turns on" males. Cultural norms also seem to have to have played an enormous role in the popularity of the these items sold, as female gather, just like males, and discuss what are the best methods to attract the opposite sex; and it seems they all agree that males really "get off" viewing the VC catalogs.
Now we turn to the third cultural development in recent years that has affected our beta male radical viewpoint, and that is the rise of male "laddie" magazines, and for want of a better group name, I will call them, The Wal-Mart Step-Children publications. The reason for this title, is that just two months ago, [June 2003] America's largest retail and discount store chain announced that it was covering the front pages of these magazines in the news stand rack for reasons of modesty. These are a series of male-oriented magazines that cater to the rising population of young beta males, and it seems that the corporate executives seem to think the suggestive poses of the females found on the front covers of the magazine may upset the sensibilities of their customers -- however, their moral outrage seems to fall short from making profits from the sale of such items.
I went to my local Lakewood, Colorado library yesterday [July 14, 03] to do some research on the magazines, but it appears that my local head librarian had more backbone than the executives of Wal-Mart, and the magazines were no where to be found. So, for time considerations brought on by the deadline requirements of this essay, I will just give a quick summary of the three leading magazines and give a more detailed summary on just one. (Trust me; there is nothing significantly cerebral about them anyway). Of the top three we have Maxim, FHM (For Him Magazine), and Stuff ("Without Stuff, You have nothing"). I think to summarize these magazines properly would be to simply say that they are in-between the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition and Playboy magazine; in Sports Illustrated, the focus is on sports and the competitive ability of individual players, and in Playboy, the main focus is the center page that dominates the magazine in which a young, fertile, naked female in Fecundate perfecta, presides. In the magazine, she is surrounded by overpriced consumer items, and various articles of an intellectual nature that may appeal to males.
In these three magazines, there usually are more than one female, but there is no center page that folds out to highlight one particular female Fecundate perfecta. The young females found seem to have been placed throughout the magazine merely as afterthoughts. There are plenty of "educational" articles about "How To" accomplish this or that, but to their credit, there is rarely is any female nudity in any of the issues that would even register on the offensive scale in today's American culture. There seems to be an iron-clan cultural norm passed on from magazine to magazine that no female parts involved in sexual copulation be exposed. So what is seen pictorially are naked, fertile, young women in suggestive poses, but arms, hands, legs, and twisted torsos are positioned in such a manner as to cover up the "offensive" body parts. But unlike the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue where the fertile females are seen from afar in a reflective mood, in all three of our laddie magazines, the females have eye contact with the viewer and most have a suggestive, "I want you, come here" message emanating from their facial expressions; this mechanism is frequently used in the more "raw" male publications pictorially showing not only whole naked female bodies, but also frequently, openly exposed genitals. Is this perhaps, the ultimate male fantasy? -- A physically ideal sexual partner with perfect body symmetry -- and sending a visual open invitation? (I believe the evolution of the "non-offensive" practice may have been handed down due to postal requirements from England and the United States).
On an interesting note, Victoria's Secret, all three of "lower class" magazines, Playboy, and the Sport Illustrated swimsuit edition, may have had a common ancestor in the publication business. And here my research is very, very murky for I have only seen the evidence on a few rare occasions, but I know that is it the "custom" in England that there are newspapers (I don't know how many, or the history of each) that cater specifically to the "lower class" males of English society; these publications, (once again from my limited knowledge), have a long history, and I feel that they emerged from the human desire to read sensational, or "yellow journalistic" news found on paper "rags." This "ancestral" culture of duplicating "what works for profits" could have evolved from the mechanism of placing photographs of nude, or semi-nude young fertile females on "Page Three" of these publications after discussing the leading news items. [For an excellent paper on this emerging focus on the evolutionary endurance of yellow journalism, see the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, Vol. 24, #3, May 2003, entitled Why Humans Value Sensational News: An Evolutionary Perspective, by Hank Davis, and S. Lyndsay McLeod]. A visual example of this Page Three Girl legacy can be found online at: http://www.page3.com which is an offshoot of The Sun Newspaper, in England. [Caution: contains visuals of female breasts]. I think that it is also important to recall my mention of Rupert Murdoch as being the proud "parent" who owns 175 newspapers around the world, many of which, follow this "entertainment" formula (or at least, that is what my slim research has found). Political pundits will instantly recall Mr. Murdoch as a dominate male with strong conservative leanings. And if my memory serves me correctly, aren't conservatives supposed to uphold morality as being the glue that keeps Democracies strong and viable?
As for our focus on one of the popular three magazines, I have gone to the online version of Maxim on July 16, 2003 and have extracted the leading stories that the magazine has featured. (In this electronic era, I do not know how long these articles will remain online in order for you to verify my information, but here is the citation link: http://www.maximonline.com http://www.maximonline.com.
Covering sex, sports, beer, gadgets, clothes, and fitness [Yahoo! search description]
Top Stories -- The Big Show
" We want answers! Who's twice your
age but could still break you over his knee like a fine Indian Cigarillo? Ah-Nold,
of course." This is an interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger. As
a candidate for Governor of California, [as of August 6th, 2003] Mr. Schwarzenegger,
in his movie portrayals, exemplifies the ultimate primal male aggressive, and
the ideal "big man" persona that the neocons swoon for (also search
for, "The Warrior"-Yes, that is his legal name -- he's a former professional
wrestler). These males are the perfect examples of the "big man" principle
of many nomadic tribes today that equate "big men" with "great
leader" and the overriding evolutionary principle that emerges from male
dominated science and interpretations of history. That principle dictates that
only males can lead and save the clan, tribe, and village because of their physical
" The Pickup Guide -- Our girl-approved courtship cues guarantee you go home happy...and wake happier." An obvious attempt at "educating" young males in the gentle art of getting access to female sex. Of course, there is no mention of commitment or responsibility - just sexual fulfillment and the happy chemical mix that result from the "hunt and conquest." And does anyone want to bet who wrote the script for the "female advisors?"
" Mound Hogs -- We picked the brains of baseball's 3000 strikeout pitchers -- and have Vaseline stains to prove it." This is a combinational interview with male "heroes" and praise for past conquests designed to "educate" the young male. But, if you read the last introductory line carefully, there is the implicit hint that cheating is also one way that the young male reader can find success.
" Booty Call -- Untold billions in unrecovered bullion are scattered across the ocean floor all over the globe. Get it!" Ah, the exciting calls of adventure and riches! What young adolescent male is not ready to leave home behind when the possibilities of finding untold riches are just beyond the next horizon? Is the call to seek riches through adventure in the innate nature of males?
" Jerry's Vids -- Buckheimer knows explosive action flicks, but which of his movies' scenes blow his mind?" Another interview with a "successful" male. Only this one is mostly centered on visual effects that occur on a movie screen. The key words here are "action flicks" as the young male mind needs to keep his mind sharp and ready for battle at a moment's notice. The crop of "action" movies in 2003 which produced positive profits can also be calculated in how much time is spent on "action" versus "conservation." In casual conversations with many of my colleagues in the evolutionary community, there seems to be a consensus emerging that the action movie, (always popular) is now more violent and "noisy" than ever because of the popularity of hand-held and video arcade games that seem to emphasis "blood and gore." And of course, guess what? The hint of the sexy female in "high kicking" (to expose her hidden genitals?) action sequences is also proving "profitable."
(A special note: as I was going to publication with this essay in early August 2003, a fourth possible cultural development aimed at our beta males was rising on the American horizon: Spike TV -- or as the network calls it: TV for Men. Guess what the main diet consists of? "Action" movies).
I could go on and on, and will do so in the online book version, but essays should be kept to a manageable length, and I fear that I may have extended the attention span of my intended audience: Male liberal and progressive policy makers.
It is at this point that I am going to churn the entire essay into debate points and make some suggestions to progressives as to how they can reverse their temporary depression and turn losses, into victories.
Overview summation: Yes, the conservatives are correct in stating that they have momentarily "won" the hearts and minds of NASCAR Dads, Blue-collar workers, Joe Six-Packs, and MARs -- Middle American Radicals. They are the keystone -- with them in your political corner, you will win elections, without them, you lose -- IT IS THAT SIMPLE. This group is highly motivated and can be considered the "catalistic" norm that leads the pack. These males work hard and earn good money, and many women not only desire this "manliness" trait, but also tend to allow this group to "take command" of the family -- either because of the Judeo-Christian tradition, or the masculine fundamentalist culture that surrounds the approval of their general behavior. Call them Red Necks (because they work all day outdoors with the hot sun beating down and "burning" their white skin), blue-collar workers, Joe Six-Packs, overseers, ranch foremen, cattle haulers, ditch diggers, candle stick makers, or bakers -- These are the men that move mighty America and GET THE JOB DONE. Recorded history has moved their importance to secondary positions and has not given them enough praise. Sure, Soccer Moms are important, but since 9/11, guess what? The polls are suggesting that they are now suddenly similar to our male MARs. And why? - Because, now they are fearful for their families security - and who in our historical past has stepped up to the plate and "defended" our families? And because every beta person knows that the best defense is a good offense, even "sensible" women have put their approval on sending male betas to war to "protect" our homeland. As for our beta males, they rally to the call of doing a "public good" and are willing to die for this cause if they think the message is strong enough. These beta males are the real heroes, and without them, alpha males are mostly impotent and can accomplish little. It is about time we let the world focus on these people as major players and king makers, and praise them for their accomplishments in deeds instead of words.
1st suggestion: This is going to hurt -- but knowing that outward visual image of strength and vitality that one political candidate portrays is the most important key in winning elections if the candidate is a male. From our evolutionary past, the images that voters see today in a candidate are internal evaluations of their physical strength potential: Is the candidate physically strong enough to lead our country? Ridiculous, you say? Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-OH is the one of the best candidates running amongst the 2004 presidential Democratic candidates in regards to his passion and policies, but he does not have a prayer of getting the Democratic nomination. And Why? Because he projects a small, whiney personality to those who do not wish to pay close attention and probe any further into the man or his ideas. Phrases like, "there's just something about him that I don't like" most likely will creep into poll answers from potential voters. Why do you think republicans seem to swoon over tall, muscular, and less articulate (straight talking) candidates and personas like Arnold SchWARzennegger and the ex-wrestler, "The Warrior?" -- yes, that is his legal name. Why did the White House have the President of the United States fly onto an air craft carrier and be "admired" by the sailors as "Stud-in-Chief?" To quickly sum up: You can't change the physical appearance of the Democratic candidates, nor should they stoop to lowly levels of Neanderthals when giving speeches, but you can educate the public in commercials that "big men" do not always equate to "the best man" when it comes to political office. One way is through humor: Saturday Night Live? Dennis Kucinich as Arnold Schwarzennegger? How about Howard Dean on stilts because statistics tell us that "the tallest Presidential candidate wins 80% of the time? A "Queer-Eye-for-the-Straight-Guy" makeover for Al Sharpton? I am very serious here. Unfortunately, style is becoming more important than substance, and the Republicans are riding the wave to victories without really knowing the science behind their "brilliant" strategies. And another suggestion that is an offshoot of the "big man" image political persona -- are there no progressive, professional athletes out there to help out with the cause???
2nd suggestion: In presenting your progressive message, "sound angry." You don't really have to be angry, just sound angry -- or you can really be angry about the conservative destruction of America and really express yourself. You have to "de-evolve" down into our ancestral past and be prepared to "fight" for your beliefs. This is what the neocons have learned that has worked so well for them since the "Dixiecrat" post-civil rights movement days. Their alpha anger stems from the loss of the civil war as a "competition" between the South and North and "being forced" to accept the "lesson of humiliation" of defeat and "accept the memory of" racial integration. This combative stance can be seen in American politics in 2003 by recalling the words of Grover Norquest that one of the "joys" in life is "to see the enemy flee before you and hear the lamentations of their women." And also Norquest's stunning remark that cooperating with your political opponent is the equivalent of "Date Rape." What the neocons have done is to simply tap into the visceral (bodily, instinctive, deeply emotional) competitive chemical base you have read about above, and have inserted the "call to arms oratory to do a public good." These "angry words" "fire up the chemistry" in all humans, but in particular, it seems to affect our target beta males more profoundly; to them, it really is the "call to arms" -- and it means to them that serious "action" (movement) is needed. But, don't despair -- It NOT only works with conservative Republicans, but Democrats as well. Just look at the recent success that Howard Dean has had in 2003. Does this man "fire up" his audience or what? And why? Because, he is genuinely "angry."
3rd K.I.S.S.A: Keeping your message simple and stupid has always been one of the principles in the military when it comes to instructing our beta males. (Or so, one officer in the Air Force who produced an educational brochure once confided to me). Yes, I know that it seems derogatory, but I want you to view it in another light that really makes sense to beta males: While progressives are off sounding cerebral and intellectual in the policy pronouncements, beta males are busy building the country with their hands. They really don't have time to get into long, intellectual discussions on any policy. It is NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE STUPID. Heavens no -- have you ever read a union labor contract and understood its complex details? Do you realize the vast knowledge required to be a New York City, or London cab driver? Do you know how many names, addresses, physical requirements, and vicious dog locations that a letter-carrier must remember? I can't emphasis enough how many times one of my blue-collar colleagues at work has impressed me with their detailed statistics on a particular professional sporting team or event -- my examples could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: beta males are not stupid, and they generally TRUST alpha males to do the detail work. When you lose their trust, you lose their vote as well. As for the final "A" behind K.I.S.S., it now stands for "and Angry."
4th. MARs need jobs. They need jobs to buy "stuff" and "toys" and "peacock clothes" (which in evolutionary terms can mean acquiring 18-wheelers for Red Necks, or Hummers for the Jr. Executives) in order to attract women and pass their DNA. How do modern men and women get together to mate? They have to understand what each gender wants and they have to know how to fulfill those needs. Females want commitment and assistance in raising her children, and men want....well, read the essay above. But, in order for the man to attract the female he needs "stuff" to display to the female that he is worthy; in our modern society that means getting a job that pays wages that buys "stuff." Here's the rallying cry for 2003 and beyond for progressives. JOBS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY/NOT WARS FOR OIL. It is time to break the oil monopoly's back just like the American people got fed up with the lies from the tobacco giants, and raise an ANGRY CRY for the need for jobs to create renewable energy to end our dependence on imported oil. The neocons will argue that renewable energy only provides about 10% of our current needs and would put our country is jeopardy because we might "offend" our oil producing fiends. Buffalo droppings, I say!! This "shortage" looks more to me like an positive than a negative. If we have such a big task ahead of us, it sounds like we could create enough jobs that can be directed to this project that could last well into 2050 and beyond!!! Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work! What mother or father, if given a choice, would rather have their sons and daughters find a job at home then go to war in a foreign land over oil? Would the neocon created "hero," Jessica Lynch, have left home and joined the Army if she had a good job in her local small town constructing parts for giant wind turbines? It is time we progressives expressed our "extreme displeasure" about the fatally flawed conservative position that only having a super wealthy upper-class with tons of money is the primary method of moving our economy forward. Building luxury homes with gold-plated plumbing fixtures, tax deductions for Hummer's in the garage, or yachts in the harbor that serve the needs and comforts of the idle class will not get American's back to work and put America on the road to "self-reliance." Oh, and by the way -- isn't "self-reliance" a "masculine" theme that helps to define the "backbone" of a conservative?
5th. Class warfare I: Since our MARs target group likes to focus its attention on competitive sports, I am stunned that there are never any references by progressives in televised political debates about PARITY between sports teams. Call me stupid, but isn't this practice of taking from the "successful and rich" teams, and giving to the "less successful and poor" teams the same thing as PROFESSIONAL SPORT WELFARE? Of course, their is no governmental tax money involved --unless, there is corporate welfare involved -- but "experience has taught us" that once a sports team (like the N. Y. Yankees sucks up money and buys the best players) that the system is "no longer fair" and does not work right?. Isn't this the same argument about all the wealthily getting too many breaks in the recent tax cut of 2003? And in regards to the female vote, let's not forget Title IX. Pounding away at the benefits of "leveling the playing field" between the genders and the benefits that it has brought to our sisters is a solid way of bringing back Soccer Moms to the Progressive fold.
6th.Class warfare II: Riches are good, poverty is bad -- Never, never criticize wealth. We all benefit from wealth, we all like wealth, and we all seek the advantages that it brings; why do you think the republicans have won the argument about taxes? Wealth should never be the issue -- attack the gap between the Rich and the Poor. How big of an SUV does it take to make a conservative happy? Answer: It's never big enough because neocons only associate with each other, thus only compete with each other for hierarchical positions. Because they live in gated communities that keep the poor out -- the poor are never seen (take note - that is a really important point - see Professor Paul Rubin's Darwinian Politics concerning the "identifiable individual mechanism" which basically teaches us that you can't feel sorry for an individual unless you know they exist. A good scientific path to take with liberals is to cite papers about "happiness" that find beyond a certain accumulation of wealth, there is little sense of well-being. Once again, attack the gap, by staging "busing the poor to ultra-rich shopping mall days" and recording the events that transpire. If the conservatives want to be "open-minded" and color-blind, then they would not mind a "visit" from their poor brethren to share their day and facilities.
7th: Morality Neocons insist that they hold the moral high ground over "liberals." Buffalo Droppings. Everyday we hear about pedophiles chatting with young children in chat rooms and trying to seduce them to meet offline. Who owns the chat rooms? Big business, that's who. Let's face it. Pornography is creeping into the bottom-line of some of America's largest corporations as x-rated movies are being shown in some of America's "finest" hotel chains and large cable companies. The big, vast, and conservative General Electric defense contractor (whom we recall helps to protect America's morality, also owns NBC Broadcasting, which in turn owns Bravo Entertainment; and why is that a problem? Because Bravo entertainment is making money off of shows called "Boy meets Boy - a gay-based dating show -- and The Queer Eye for the Straight Guy - which features five gay men out to remake a "fashion-challenged" straight guy." (Which I feel is culturally important in dispensing with homophobia) . Whenever conservatives raise their voices about "liberal immorality," let's stick the morality issue right back in their faces. Oh, yes, and don't forget Rupert Mudoch and his Page Three Girls.
8th: Make Grover Norquist and Ken Lay poster boys of Neoconservativism (It worked for progressives against Newt Gingrich, it can work for his protégé) -- especially since he was quoted in The Denver Post in June 2003, as saying that "bipartisanship is date rape" he should be used as the vehicle to return Soccer Moms back to the Democratic fold. If he is on the defensive, then he can't go on the offense in regards to pet project in keeping the wealthy from paying their fair share of maintaining Democracy. Ken Lay is the perfect candidate of the wealthy elite in America who can steal the equivalent amounts of 30,000 "welfare queens" and still live in the lap of luxury with only a modicum of protest from the right.
9th: The U.S. Military. This is the 800-pound gorilla that makes its presence felt wherever it goes. The only thing that I am going to say on this matter is to suggest that progressives embrace the military instead of rejecting it outright. The U.S. Military has the potential to be the greatest tool for good on the planet. I have over 20 suggestions for this institution, but I will not post any suggestions on this site or in hardcopy for political security reasons. If interested for those suggestions, contact me -- but serious inquires only.
10th: Use evolution as the argumentative basis that underlies all human behavior as a major tool against conservatism. Neocons are solidly behind the "god created man and women-from-man's rib mentality." The strong stand on "religion" is really just a cover to justify masculine domination and control by the male over everything. Their belief that God handed down the laws to man, and man therefore is pre-destined to rule over all, is basic in all fundamentist's religions. The subject of evolution is highly contentious, and can easily be used to drive a wedge between the Republican far-right and its "sensible" and intelligent center. Evolution is no longer a theory. Once again, the suggestion as to how to approach this subject is too important to post here for political security reasons. If you want to learn more, contact me -- serious inquires only.
11th. Sex. . The 2000-pound gorilla. Once again, too important to post online or in hard copy. I have a few good suggestions; if you want to know more, contact me. Serious inquires only.
I hope I have given progressive friends many answers to lift the clouds that have darkened their political horizons since the mid-term elections in 2002. But, more importantly, I hope I have peaked the interests of policy makers in wanting to learn more about the evolutionary perspective as a tool of progressiveness.
* * *
[link to web site Emotional Competency" describing a domince contest...(a duel or whatever) Dominance Contest
Copyright, Evolution's Voyage & William A. Spriggs 1995 - 2011
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND CITATIONS
Men From Mars: Correctly Identifying -- Beta Males