Home > Andreas Kluth, Castration, Hannibal Blog, Morality, Violence > Is Castrating Males A Good Idea?

Is Castrating Males A Good Idea?

Over at The Hannibal Blog a fun debate took place between me and some other commentators after Andreas posted his thoughts on culture of competition’s effect on violence (which linked my post on Ape/Human violence). One commentator suggested that since testosterone was linked to violence society would be better off if all males were castrated above a certain age. 

If you’re game or interested enough to follow a debate on a topic like that read on. Note to readers: I’ve edited out many comments that aren’t directly relevant to this specific debate. Also I’ve rearranged the order of many comments to make it easier to follow. To read the entire text go to the original post (be aware that the original is not ordered by time so some comments seem out of order).


Phil:

Since violence is almost wholly a male thing, and since it’s testosterone which fuels male violence, a solution to endemic violence would the mandatory castration of all males above a stipulated age.

Dafna

hilarious phil! ;0

basically reduce the men to “sperm donor status”! ouch.

uh, i’m probably the only one laughing?

Andreas

Actually, violence is almost wholly a YOUNG male thing. Has to do with evolutionary biology. Could we just give the 17-year-old lads an estrogen shot or something, to calm them down for a few years? That way, they could keep their jewels for their mellow later years.

Phil:
My suggestion actually is serious. The innately violent male is a luxury our world can no longer afford. His psychology therefore has to change. Since his reading tomes by dead Greek and dead German philosophers won’t likely do this, his being castrated is the better option.

With innate male violence surgically removed through castration, there would, for starters, be no more wars and no more rapes and no more unwanted pregnancies. In this way, and in other undreamed ways, our world would truly be transformed.

There is, of course, the little matter of how the next generation would be produced. This would be looked after by having the male about to undergo castration, have a sperm sample taken, which would be stored under his name in a sperm bank.

Should he subsequently meet the Beloved of his dreams, and wishes her to bear his children, and she says yes, she would be inseminated with his stored sperm.

All this said, I don’t expect my eminently reasonable suggestion to bear fruit soon, if ever, because the male still runs things, and likely always will.

Douglas:
Has it crossed your mind that the problem may not be testosterone? It does not cause all males, or even the majority of them, to behave in a violent manner. It is a factor, not a cause. It is true that a reduction in testosterone also results in a reduction in aggressive behavior. But aggressive behavior is not always a bad thing. It is part of the reason that we take risks. It gives us test pilots, astronauts, entrepreneurs,football players, firemen, policemen, and capable soldiers who risk their lives to protect the rest of us.

Your solution is, to be blunt, too simple. Sort of like that extra chromosome thing that was once thought to be behind criminal behavior. We are complex creatures and there doesn’t seem to be universal answers to any of our possibly inherent problems.

Me:
Did it ever actually occur to you that your “solution” to violence is violence? Leave it to a male to think that is a good idea. Do you think males are just going to willingly agree to be mass castrated? To solve homelessness we could just execute the homeless too or when they freeze we could stack their bodies and build igloos to house other homeless. Jonathan Swift would be “proud” of your modest proposal.

If I were you I’d also consider reading or watching A Clockwork Orange.

Phil:
@ Dan
“…….Did it ever actually occur to you that your ‘solution’ to violence is violence……..?”

Surgically removing testicles is no more violent than surgically removing an appendix.

“……Do you think males are just going to willingly agree to be mass castrated…….?”

No.

However, males are still conscripted into armies despite that they don’t willingly agree to being conscripted.

As it is for conscription, why not also for castration?

“…….To solve homelessness we could just execute the homeless too or when they freeze we could stack their bodies and build igloos to house other homeless……….”

You are painting with too wide a brush.

“…….,If I were you I’d also consider reading or watching A Clockwork Orange……..

I’ve watched the film many times throughout the almost now 40 years since it came out. Beethoven hasn’t been the same for me since.

@ Paul
“…….violence is not reserved to men. Women can be most violent and destructive when they set their minds to it…….”

I don’t doubt this. However, men commit 90% and more of violent crimes.

Me
Surgically removing testicles is no more violent than surgically removing an appendix. 

Umm… the difference seems to be pretty obvious: People agree to have their appendix removed to save their lives; forced castration would be almost the exact opposite.

However, males are still conscripted into armies despite that they don’t willingly agree to being conscripted.
As it is for conscription, why not also for castration?

For one, I’m not a supporter of conscription. You’ll notice the US and many other civilized nations stopped that practice. Also, to conscript someone you have to be willing to commit violence against them if they refuse. What would you do to someone who refused (which would be the sensible thing I might add) castration? Lock them in jail? And if they resisted that because it’d be a morally injust infringement on their human rights – you’d have to violently force them (gun point probably), would you not? Do you really think forcibly castrating men isn’t violent!? Or no more violent than removing an inflamed organ that can cause their death?

On the homeless analogy to illustrate your extreme suggestion; I could make a case that my satirical suggestion is actually less appalling than your actual recommendation. After all, collecting frozen corpses would happen after their death, not while they are living. It’d mitigate future homelessness by providing shelter to the downtrodden. It’s even a green solution! No more environmentally unfriendly building materials – we are cutting down our forests at an unsettling rate after all – also our new “building blocks” are even organic!

Look I almost never throw out the Nazi card. But this is literally a policy the Nazis used. Except that they used it EVEN LESS universally than you are suggesting.

I’ll put down my broad brush if you put down your capacious scalpel.

Douglas:
@Phil
Surgically removing testicles is no more violent than surgically removing an appendix.

Except that one is voluntary, the other is forced. And “forced” is always “violent.”

However, males are still conscripted into armies despite that they don’t willingly agree to being conscripted.

As it is for conscription, why not also for castration?

This bit of inanity ignores the protests and riots over the US draft in the late 60′s, not to mention the draft riots of the Civil War era and the numbers who fled to Canada or dodged the draft in the aforementioned 60′s.

I thought you were being facetious when you first suggested this, now I am a bit appalled at the fascism inherent in the suggestion.

Richard:
Setting aside, for convenience, enquiry into the link between testosterone and violence, female violence and conscription, would you agree, Dan and Douglas that the victims, say, of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Berlin and London were neither consulted nor gave their consent?

And Andreas, do you say that sublimation eliminates raw human violence?

Douglas:
@Richard

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Victims of violence rarely give their consent.

As to the particular victims you mention, tacit consent is thought to be given by vote (Germany – election of Hitler and the NAZI party) or tradition (Japan – following the Emperor). We all are subject to the consequences of the actions of our governments. That, of course, is also the justification used by al Qaeda for attacking civilian targets, as well as by terrorists since the late 60′s.

Richard
If, Douglas, it is permissible to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki without the consent of those who live there, why is it not permissible to castrate without consent? Similarly, if it is permissible to bomb European cities without consent in the supposed furtherance or defence of civilisation, why is it not permissible to castrate for a like cause? The nature of consent is a separate question.

Douglas
@Richard
If, Douglas, it is permissible to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki without the consent of those who live there, why is it not permissible to castrate without consent?

Well, first you would need to recognize what made bombing the cities mentioned “permissible” (as you call it). It is called “war” and targeting of non-combatants (i.e. civilians) is not permissible under the Geneva convention. What made the bombings permissible was the military industries in those cities and the inability at that time to make surgical strikes.

Second, individuals were not targeted by the bombings. They would be in a castration plan.

Third, the efficacy of a wholesale castration program is highly questionable because testosterone is NOT the trigger factor for violence, it is merely ONE factor in the violence equation.

Phil:

I didn’t expect that my suggestion that all males be mandatorily castrated to bring about a violence-free world would be debated as seriously and thoughtfully as it has been in the above comments.

The issues raised may therefore deserve of wider currency.

So, Andreas, how about you suggesting to your employers at the Economist that this topic be the subject of one of those future on-line debates which the Economist periodically stages?

Me:

I can foresee all the people jumping at the chance to advocate universal forced castration now! Sorry Phil, not sure The Economist would be able to find someone serious enough for their platform who’s had their sense of morality sterilized.I have to ask, why haven’t you (I’m know I’m making a bit of a presumption right now) had yourself sterilized/castrated? We have the technology to freeze your sperm as you brought to our attention before. I’m seriously interested in these answers – feel free to have a go at my previous arguments as well. Forgive my rhetorical shots, as you seem to have noticed, I and others are seriously considering your modest proposal and I really do find it ethically extreme and abhorrent, but I’d like to pry into your thought processes a bit. Oh, and have you considered the tailor-made-for-you phrase: “The Ends Don’t Justify The Means”?

Andreas:

I’m happy to suggest it. Can’t guarantee it’ll happen. 😉 

Phil:

@ Dan

“…….Sorry Phil, not sure The Economist would be able to find someone serious enough for their platform who’s had their sense of morality sterilized…….”
Does the Economist know this?
“……I have to ask, why haven’t you (I’m know I’m making a bit of a presumption right now) had yourself sterilized/castrated……..?”
That’s for me to know and for you to find out.
“…..I and others are seriously considering your modest proposal……”
I’m glad to learn this.
“……..I really do find it ethically extreme and abhorrent……..”
It’s difficult to please everybody.
“…….I’d like to pry into your thought processes a bit……”

You’d find it boring. 


Me

Without getting into the morality of specific bombings, battles, or wars – we don’t need the consent of those we’re fighting to use force to stop them from committing crimes against humanity. In a morally justified act of war, we’re not targeting innocent civilians (when we are or when we have: that would be morally wrong). Collateral damage is a can of worms I don’t want to get into now and doesn’t really seem germane to the discussion anyway.  

 Universal male forced sterilization would be purposeful targeting of innocents. Not every male is a violent problem after all. It’s also ridiculous to punish people for the potential to commit crime, isn’t it? Not even the intent – the mere potential. Where does that end? Eugenics at best, probably. Disturbing. 

Richard:

Please explain your implied assertion this is a discussion about specific bombings, collateral damage and a just war, Dan.




Are you able to define a crime against humanity in a way that separates warfare from other kinds of violence?Please explain your implied assertion that this is a discussion about international law, Douglas, and enlarge upon why individuals are not targeted, either intentionally or necessarily, in bombings.

Douglas:
Please explain your implied assertion that this is a discussion about international law, Douglas, and enlarge upon why individuals are not targeted, either intentionally or necessarily, in bombings.

Because (a) you brought up the bombings of extra-national cities and (b) read the Geneva Convention.


I really don’t like “red herrings”. You brought these issues up. I should have called you on the red herrings but didn’t, thinking you did it innocently enough.We, in the US, have something called “due process” which is mentioned in the 4th Amendment of our Constitution. We can’t even castrate sexual predators without their consent because it would be seen as “cruel or unusual” punishment which we are also protected from by our Constitution. These two things would seem to make a mass castration plan illegal in the US. Further musing on this, I think a Congress enacting such a plan would result in a revolt. Now, could we go back to rational and reasonable debate about violence in society?

Me:

Please explain your implied assertion this is a discussion about specific bombings, collateral damage and a just war, Dan.
Are you serious!? Thank you Douglas for already answering; this apparently needs to be hammered in a bit. (1) I specifically said this IS NOT a discussion about those things.
“Without getting into the morality of specific bombings, battles, or wars” “Collateral damage is a can of worms I don’t want to get into now and doesn’t really seem germane to the discussion anyway.” Honestly, did you even read what I wrote? (2) I only brought those things up because YOU started talking about them. I was trying to respond to your ridiculous comparison. “If, Douglas, it is permissible to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki without the consent of those who live there, why is it not permissible to castrate without consent? Similarly, if it is permissible to bomb European cities without consent in the supposed furtherance or defence of civilisation, why is it not permissible to castrate for a like cause? ” Honestly, did you even read what you wrote? I’m not even going to respond to the other question. As you noticed, it just isn’t relevant. Phil has decided to stop making productive comments.
“That’s for me to know and for you to find out.” “It’s difficult to please everybody.” “You’d find it boring.” I assume (or maybe “hope” is the word) that Phil realized his position is utterly indefensible so he’s ducking any responsibility to respond to my interrogation of his reasoning. I’ll hold out some faith that he’ll just admit his advocation of such a horrific policy was immoral and wrong. Can you at least concede that the policy would be violent, as I originally sought to point out? “Did it ever actually occur to you that your “solution” to violence is violence?”
Phil, it isn’t a bad thing to recognize that your idea, which you probably just tossed out off the cuff, isn’t as moral or peaceful as you first estimated.
Richard:
I do admit, Dan, that I was hoping later to justify my comments, but in the immediate context I was seeking, politely, to redirect your focus on to the issue of consent. Never mind.




Richard:

Since, Dan, we have not examined to a conclusion the relation of Phil’s proposal and consent, perhaps you will allow me to proceed direct to the object of that enquiry. That object is to ask you to say, if you will, why you align Phil’s proposal in particular with Nazism, ethical extreme and abhorrence and my consideration of it in general with support of eugenics.

Me:

I suppose this is why I didn’t even want to bring up the Nazi example – another tangent. But I thought I was pretty clear: I linked to wikipedia explaining that Nazis forcibly castrated people. Is that really that difficult to make a jump between forced castration of particular groups to forcing castration of all males? Isn’t it actually more extreme? It’s not like the Nazis didn’t think they were acting toward a higher goal – they didn’t think they were evil. They just were. You may think forcing castration on all males is a good thing to prevent future violence, but as I’ve tried to argue: that is evil (or at the very least: violent – that was my original point, which I don’t see how that is in dispute).

“By the end of World War II, over 400,000 individuals were sterilized under the German law and its revisions, most within its first four years of being enacted.”

The connection with eugenics is clear (for one, that’s why the Nazis did it). Also, I was extending the logic of taking action against someone for the potential to do something. i.e. stopping males potential for violence before they have even committed any violent acts. Eugenics prevents the potential to pass on “abnormal” genes. The Nazis and other eugenics supporters wanted to “purify” humanity’s genetic makeup. Phil wants to “purify” male’s inherent nature by altering its “inherently violent” hormonal makeup.

Richard:

Have I yet expressed support or opposition to Phil’s proposal, Dan?  

Me:

Did I say you have? I’m pretty sure I just directly answered your questions. If you’re confusing my “you may think” for saying “you think,” understand that I was making a rhetorical point. Reread the context. The “may” is the key word there. Feel free to substitute “one” for “you” if that makes it clearer for you.

Richard:

Thank you. 

Phil:
To compare what I propose, to that which the Nazis did, is to compare chalk with cheese.
The Nazis castrated selected groups of men whom they saw as totally different to themselves, and whom they did not like. I propose castrating people (men) who, as men, are not different to ourselves, and whom we don’t totally not like.
Also, the intent of the Nazis was that they intended that the men they castrated not father any more children. What I propose contains the opposite – that men, by donating sperm before castration, can father children.
These are huge differences, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Douglas:

@Phil
Your proposal takes away the opportunity for enjoyment, momentary though it may be, of the fathering process.

I wonder, have you volunteered for the procedure?


Jenny:

I just now picked up on the sublime/sublimate connection. Doh.

Richard:

This fascinating debate was leading to an examination of the nature of aggression and an enquiry into why an advanced civilisation suddenly resorts to primitive brute force. Unfortunately, it has descended to pejorative. Your intervention is soothing, very feminine and welcome. I weary a little and will take my leave.

Phil:

I surmise that chimpanzees jumping up and down and screeching furiously at each other are saying the same sorts of things to each other in their chimp language as were said in sadly all too many of the above comments.

Given that well-nigh all the comments appeared to come from males allegedly human, they were as good an example as any of innate male irrationality and stupidity.

I too am weary and will take my leave.

Me:

I can’t help but assume that you two consider my comments part of the screeching chimp “irrationality and stupidity” that has “descended to pejorative.” I won’t spend my time focusing on the hypocrisy contained in that sentiment. But can someone please point out (if it applies to me) my “primitive brute force,” my “screeching,” and my “irrationality and stupidity?” I honestly thought I was just seriously engaging in your actual proposal to forcibly castrate all males. If strong language can’t be used to discuss a topic such as that I’m afraid you may be more interested in the lack of critical scrutiny than true debate.

Was it the Nazi reference? Is it really “pejorative” to point out a direct connection to a policy if I actually believe it is comparable? I’m not calling you a Nazi; I’m pointing out the policy you advocate is a policy that Nazis used (even if for a different rationale). Anyone is welcome to refute that and I’ll happily recant.

I didn’t spend the time to engage each of your arguments line-by-line in order to make frivolous personal remarks. Phil, how did you go from believing your suggestion was being “debated as seriously and thoughtfully” to believing the conversation was more primal shouting than honest consideration laced with a bit of humor? Most of my strongest comments even came before you acknowledged it was being debated with sobriety even if with vigor. What changed?

I apologize if I gave anyone the impression I wasn’t commenting with the highest intentions for genuine discussion. I enjoy a good barb but always wrap it around an earnest argument; didn’t mean to sting anyone’s integrity. I thought we were being Greek. All the best.

Andreas:

How bizarre. I’m with Dan on this: Following your debate with enormous interest, I also assumed that you were all “being Greek”.

In fact, I still think you were. That was good debate. have more of them.

Richard:

Well, there it is. We all part from this friends. 

Me:

Glad to hear. May we meet in this Andreas’s rhetorical assembly again.

Richard:

I fear you cut straight through a fragile thread which led to treasure, Dan. 

Me:

I do my best 😉 

(image from Wikipedia: testosterone structure

Advertisements
  1. July 30, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    Quite an amusing thread, displayed like this. A gem for future researchers of our time. 😉

  2. July 30, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    Haha, I just hope they're not researching the origin of any large systematic government plan…

  3. July 30, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    Truly an anthropological snapshot on par with The Jersey Shore.

  4. July 31, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    I didn't read the whole conversation, so maybe someone lobbed what I'm going to say out there already. It's not super on-topic but who cares.The notion that sexually segregated societies are more likely to erupt in violence gets bounced around a lot. Part of the argument hinges on the fact that sexually segregated societies tend to have higher birth rates and have a youth bulge. They also tend to be poorer and have high unemployment rates. So the idea is that lots of unemployed young men with not much to look forward to and without a strong female influence to keep them in check will tend towards violence. I don't know if I buy the theory. It came my way via Nick Kristof of the NYT who is an easy and often entertaining read but way too light in the academic department. (quick! name a NYT editorialist who isn't!)But it still is interesting food for thought. Maybe breaking up the sausage fest is the best real-world alternative to castration!

  5. August 1, 2010 at 11:55 am

    I'm not a big fan of Kristof either, but sometimes he's worth reading. I do think Krugman isn't "light in the academic department." John Bates Clark Medal, Nobel Prize, etc. Funny though, I used to really dislike Krugman even if I always found a well-reasoned perspective from him. I just saw him as a hyper-partisan ideological purist. Not so much partisan for Democrats but against Republicans. He even treated centrists with scorn. I'm not sure the Krugman has changed, maybe the circumstances just changed around him, but he just seems to be so right on since the financial crisis. As he argued, economics changes during a recession – deficits become good for example. I'm not sure if the recession basically caused broken clock syndrome but I always make sure to check Krugman twice a day.Interesting theory on mitigating violence, Zach – the original post on Kluth's blog that spurred this conversation mediated on the idea that competition and culture can have a strong effect on violence. The view you share seems to fit with the research that Steven Levitt in Freakonomics discusses about how birthrates (from abortion) changed and thus subsequently affected the crime rate.

  6. August 2, 2010 at 11:26 am

    Phil (if you are still listening), I would argue that testosterone alone is never the cause of violence in and of itself, as Douglas opens with. Clearly we have elaborated here to highlight the complex nature of how violence might arise. Although no one here pretends to understand the complexity, it seems pretty apparently that seeing testosterone as the sole culprit of all violence grossly oversimplifies what violence is, and the many contexts and ways in which it can manifest.Also, I think I speak for most males in this great country when I tell you that my response to the proposal to castrate ME is, "But wait, I enjoy sex." In fact, I don't think I would want to get married just to artificially inseminate my wife. Sexual intercourse should be an important and exciting part of marriage, not just a side effect of producing offspring, which I think is less of a pressure in a modern age where our species threatens to overpopulate the earth.Furthermore, take the example of Jihadist suicide bombers. The way that they arrive at that act is not simply a matter of testosterone's influence, as much as the social impact of raising someone to believe that if they hold out on sex until "the afterlife," their sacrifice will be rewarded with delicious earthly delights (plentiful sex, milk, and honey) in heaven. This is a product of FRUSTRATING the sexuality of the male, not promoting it.By the same token, I am content not to go around killing people precisely because of the freedom I enjoy to satisfy my urges in less extreme ways. However, Phil, if you castrate ME, I promise you I will suicide bomb you personally.I think a more humane solution would be a pacifying anti-violence drug that the government would make easily accessible and affordable, and instituting special programs to recognize at-risk individuals to make them aware of the availability of this drug (for lack of a term here, we will call it "Soma," or better yet, "Marijuana"). Forcing a universal treatment, even of the alternative I propose here, dramatically undermines individual freedom. Would you be offended if I injected you with a mind-altering drug against your will and for reasons you do not understand? Read Orwell's 1984 or Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. And stay away from my balls.

  7. August 2, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    I agree that would certainly be a more humane solution drew, but I question the practical possibility of an "anti-violence drug." If it could even be invented (big if) what would the side-effects be?

  8. August 2, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    In all probability, I imagine the drug would also induce a lack of physical motivation, general docility, low blood pressure, at least. The withdrawal from such a drug is hard to imagine as not involving a serious rage of some sort. Honestly with the drugs that actually exist, our medical system of psychiatry has a due process of diagnosis before treatment that is as it should be with respect to being humane, so if we are talking about practicality I don't think I have an answer for violence beyond the intelligently-conceived programs that already exist, beyond just better implementation thereof.I'm not sure how feasible it is to completely eradicate the possibility of violent eruption from any individual. Someone mentioned A Clockwork Orange: Perfect exploration of this notion. Even if we target only those who have committed violent offense to the point where we can diagnose them as having a threatening propensity towards it, and furthermore the treatment (castration OR sedation OR psychological manipulation, etc., etc.) has the desired effect, how humane can we say it is in regards to the individual? Have we truly "cured" that person and morphed them into a productive member of society who thinks, feels, and acts as they "should"? Surely ignoring the individual's say on the matter constitutes a stripping of some rights that we as Americans hold dear.Ok, let's imagine that this Soma is a miracle drug that has no side effect, no withdrawal, and is somehow so simple to create that it would never run out or be fought over. The only effect it has is to completely eliminate the urge towards violence. Even then, unless the entire planet acquiesces to full-blown use of this substance without exception, individuals who remain sober from this drug would find users to be even easier targets for violence, because they won't fight back.Going back to my proposal, I would salvage any notion of its seriousness to say that even if it were somehow a "perfect" anti-violence drug, it would still need to be controlled somehow and not simply given as a blanket treatment to everyone (or every male, even though of course we have been ignoring that women can be violent sometimes, too, hello). Is it not important to actually assess individuals' risk of violent behavior before deciding to alter the individual in some fundamental way? Certainly the experimental treatment we see in A Clockwork Orange at least covers this base since the protagonist (antagonist?) is obviously violently deranged.My point is mainly that violence is not so simple a problem. Maybe there are treatment systems we can put in place to curb violence and reduce it as a whole (like the availability of a PERFECT drug designed for individuals who really cannot stop themselves, implemented in a way that we can call humane), but I don't think forcing a massive-scale treatment as extreme as castration is going to produce this effect. In fact, in order to prevent it from eventually producing a massive violent uprising from people who collectively decide that they are not ok with having been mutilated against their will, you would need to administer all kinds of systems, probably including a passivity drug AND propaganda to the effect of never giving any male the idea that life could be more fulfilling with genitals. I mean, come on, man, this castration plan is seriously freaky. It's not just a quick and easy fix.

  9. August 4, 2010 at 7:05 am

    dan, i was recently complaing about the new york times editorialists to someone else and realized that their job sucks. having to churn out something worth reading that often must be a fairly brutal job. Still, certain editorialists are worse than others. Friedman shouldn't bother meeting his word quota anymore and just submit "America needs to innovate" because that all he is going to say anyway.I'll give Krugman another shot.

  10. someone
    September 23, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    I wonder what shoudl be done about agressive females and female sexual predators, spaying them? Some people are simply stupid and biased.

  11. Julian
    December 16, 2011 at 2:41 am

    While I think that testosterone is strongly linked to tendencies towards dominance and violence, I believe that evolution has probably already explored asexual and also estrogen-biased animals and human societies and they must not have worked better or otherwise they would be the prevalent situation. In fact historically there have not been any significant female dominated societies, and female-led (e.g. Elizabethan England or various Egyptian epochs) obviously doesn’t imply that the overall societies were female dominated. I think the issue is that the violence and domination are closely related to adventurousness, perseverance, confidence, economic competition, etc. So the very real downside of testosterone-fueled violence is still a net positive for society. That’s just the way evolution works. The whole idea of gender differentiation in animals is so prevalent that it’s advantage must be pretty clear. Eliminating either gender is obviously a bad idea, supported by the fact that if it was a good idea it would have evolved to be common.

  12. March 21, 2013 at 7:04 pm

    if they play football or basket ball it should be mandatory

  13. Robert
    June 15, 2015 at 2:54 am

    I think phil need to volunteer for castration, come on buddy, man up…lead by example

  14. JP
    November 2, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    Actually violence is not any more a male thing. Males still lead but female violence is on the rise.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: