the man gene or not?
NaeNae55
3,243 Posts
I have been irritated more than once by John Phillip's claim regarding what he calls "The Man Gene." According to him, it is all caused by their biology and he feels sorry for guys who give into it.
His arguments, to him at least, are all very logical. I believe many people felt the logic of their arguments 150 years ago when people of color were considered less than human and women were considered too dumb and hysterical to be allowed to vote (and in some places, own property).
Today I read a breath of fresh air. John, if you read this I would love to hear your response.
[url]http://www.newsweek.com/id/238071[/url]
By the way, I can't help wondering if people who believe the way John does have considered the possibility that socialization has an impact on the studies that have been done regarding sex and men and women. After all, the answers by women of 100 years ago are completely different than women of today (though women still apparently find the need for sex less than men do overall). Men's answers haven't changed all that much. Socialization is certainly different than biological needs, and should have an impact on how cheaters are viewed. Just something to think about.
If you don't normally read John Phillips' blog I highly recommend it. Except for his absurd beliefs regarding The Man Gene, he offers a lot of information and insight into the HR world.
His arguments, to him at least, are all very logical. I believe many people felt the logic of their arguments 150 years ago when people of color were considered less than human and women were considered too dumb and hysterical to be allowed to vote (and in some places, own property).
Today I read a breath of fresh air. John, if you read this I would love to hear your response.
[url]http://www.newsweek.com/id/238071[/url]
By the way, I can't help wondering if people who believe the way John does have considered the possibility that socialization has an impact on the studies that have been done regarding sex and men and women. After all, the answers by women of 100 years ago are completely different than women of today (though women still apparently find the need for sex less than men do overall). Men's answers haven't changed all that much. Socialization is certainly different than biological needs, and should have an impact on how cheaters are viewed. Just something to think about.
If you don't normally read John Phillips' blog I highly recommend it. Except for his absurd beliefs regarding The Man Gene, he offers a lot of information and insight into the HR world.
Comments
Learn some self-control, men!!!! Women do it all the time - that's why our homicide rate is so low :angel:
If you believe you have no control over your thoughts or emotions it gives you license to behave badly. If you manage to behave good then you can pat yourself on the back and act like you behaved heroically. If you behave badly then you can blame your hormones or your genes or your parents, etc etc. Men and women need to be responsible for themselves. Your genes don't make you cheat. Your quick temper does not give you an excuse to hurt those you should love and protect. Your hormones don't give you license to get hysterical and scream at people. Your circumstances and your physical limitations or abilities have an impact, but in the end you are the one in control.
Ok. I'll get off my soapbox now.
I reserve the right to bring up this quote from time to time.
Pssst: just don't tell my hubby about my post.
"All this brings me to the title of this post. I’m inclined to believe there’s a man gene, for lack of a better, or more scientifically accurate, term. It’s a gene that makes men desire sex–above all else sometimes. It’s a gene that makes men take maniacal chances and be unable to consider the consequences at the time. It has nothing to do with power, arrogance, entitlement, or invincibility. It has to do with sex."
No. It has to do with wanting what you want and getting it right now.
It's true that John's attitude isn't outwardly excusing the behavior. But the idea that it is hard wired into men (and not women) is really the same thing. He felt sorry for Spitzer while telling us he didn't excuse it. Being sympathetic is another way to say, "Yes it's tough. Sorry you didn't make it this time, maybe next time." It's another way to say, "It's understandable so really not too bad. Afterall, it is tougher for men than women so women don't really understand."
If it is tougher for men then women it is because we have been socialized into accepting such behavior from men by just shaking our heads, and ostracizing women who do the same thing. It is a lot harder to say no when the consequences are tough but not terminal. Spitzer lost his job and alot of respect, but you can bet he got some slaps on the back too. It is not the same for women (or at least, it didn't used to be).
Therefore my argument is that it is not really biological. It is social. If there is any biology to it, it is not as much as men would like to think. And, if it is social, then John's blog remarks and others who agree with him perpetuate the problem. I think John believes Spitzer was wrong, but not enough to change his 'social' viewpoint.
I am sure many men in the past thought it was sad that some women couldn't own land, but not enough for them to seriously believe that it wasn't ordained that way because most women couldn't handle it. If you read the writings of some of our best scholars of the past it becomes clear that they really believed that women couldn't handle things they way they could, were unable in general to be as intelligent, and were best handled by leaving them out of the picture. They had a lot of logical arguments to back them up. That didn't make them right.
If you read the writings of some of our best scholars of the past it becomes clear that they really believed that women couldn't handle things they way they could, were unable in general to be as intelligent, and were best handled by leaving them out of the picture.[/quote]
Hmmmm. I know some men not classified as scholars who, in 21st century America, still think this way. Not that I work with any of them or any who participate in this forum.;)
I, of course, can't prove the existence of The Man Gene. Some of what I've written about The Man Gene was intended to be tongue in cheek. But let me be clear. It wouldn't surprise me if science's nascent study of genes confirms in time my belief that men have a gene that makes their desire to have sex much more powerful and uncontrollable than any comparable gene in women. That, in my opinion, is supported by scores and scores and scores of examples going back to biblical times, to take another reference from my original post on The Man Gene. Time will tell.
As to Raina Kelley's article, it is superficial and adds nothing to a meaningful discussion of this issue. I like the way she begins by comparing rape and murder to what she calls "sexual malfeasance." So, if one disagrees with her, he obviously favors rape and murder. Such poppycock always makes a reasonable discussion of the sexual divide between men and women difficult, if not impossible. But I'll press on.
It is clear that our culture doesn't turn a blind eye to "boys will be boys behavior." Yesterday, another congressman resigned because of a sexual indiscretion. Tiger Woods has been pilloried for months. Lawrence Taylor is being prosecuted. I won't take up the space to name all the men who have been viewed by a spotlight instead of a blind eye since my first post on The Man Gene, which involved Eliot Spitzer's trouble.
Ms. Kelley says she's "sick of the idea that men are slaves to their sex drives." She's sick of it? On behalf of men everywhere, let me express profound nausea about the wretched gene that reeks turmoil in the lives of men -- and women. As genetic research advances, I'm hoping that The Man Gene can be altered.
Men aren't helpless. Men aren't incapable of exercising self-control. Most men fight the good fight successfully every day. Most men don't rape and murder women. None of my posts on The Man Gene have involved rape and murder. Rather, they've involved a man, usually someone well-known, who let The Man Gene get the upper hand. He didn't fight hard enough. He did lose control. That doesn't mean that most men disrespect women or that most men view women as prey as Ms. Kelley contends. Most men have a much stronger desire to have sex than women do. When men are overwhelmed by The Man Gene's power, they get in trouble -- and should.
And by the way, all of my posts on The Man Gene have involved a man and one or more willing female participants. What's that about?
One day, the lamb and lion will lie down together. Mars and Venus will understand each other. People like me and Raina Kelley will be able to sit down and reasonably discuss the issue at hand. But not until there's a solution, a breakthrough if you will, for The Man Gene.
John Phillips
Of course, I still disagree. Your entire approach assumes the gene exists and that some men let it control them. I recognize that a difference in hormone levels affects our brain development and our urges (if only I had the urge to eat as seldom as my skinny sister does!) However, a very large part of what goes on really comes down to [B]socialization[/B]. People with fame and/or power sometimes come to believe their own PR, and thus believe they can get away with anything. This is not just men (think Lindsay Lohan).
Further, women are cheating in ever greater numbers. This is not because they suddenly started thinking about sex. This is because it has become more and more acceptable, both to cheat and to express those desires. Women demanded equality, and in this area they have almost achieved it (and I can't help connecting that to the fact that men, somewhere along the way, often like it if it works this way.)
My problem with this entire scenario is to read or hear anything anywhere that excuses this kind of behavior. When someone says, "Boys will be boys," or you blame the 'Man Gene' the message effectively says the culprit had an obstacle they either couldn't overcome or didn't need to. This at minimum reduces the severity of their action, and at maximum excuses it entirely. This is where I find myself needing to argue the point. You have a blog and are considered an intelligent man. This gives you influence. When men and women of influence write something that indicates that cheating men are [I]victims[/I] of their own genes, they strengthen the social belief system that allows cheaters to become sympathetic figures to those who abhor cheating, and heroes to those who cheat.
I agree with you that scores of examples exist since biblical times. I have to point out though, that I consider that proof for my point of view. First, looking at written texts what percent (until modern times) were written by men? Do you not feel that a different perspective might have come if they had been written by women? Let's also not forget that if men cheated they often went about their merry way, and the women were condemned to nunneries, prostitution, and sometimes death. It's really no wonder that historically speaking women have cheated less.
Ms. Kelley's article wasn't really a direct argument against your point of view. She was really talking about stars that get caught cheating but still stay popular (like Tiger Woods), and criminals who buy their way out with money and charming smiles. But it rang true with me because of the boys will be boys attitude. This attitude may not be exactly like the "Man Gene," but they are similar enough for me to make the connection.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to air my disagreement with you. Tomorrow, as usual I will be reading your blog to see what HR and business insights I can gleam.
Nae
John Phillips
I was thinking of Queso, not Quasi. Totally different.