What is Testosteron Poisoning and . . .

[n3rf (imported)]

I have heard aabout Testosteron Poisoning and how it affects the male and his behaviour etc. Is the only way to cure this to remove the source of T.??

Regards N3RF@eartlink.net

[Robby (imported)]

Testosterone Poisoning In the Work Place (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=2735)

By Larry Elder (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=2)

FrontPageMagazine.com | June 13, 2000

FIRE THE MEN!

The government repeatedly informs us that women remain oppressed in the workforce, earning "only" 76.5 cents on the dollar compared with men doing the "same" work. "Wage discrimination," says Labor Secretary Alexis M. Herman, "remains an unfortunate reality for many women." President Bill Clinton urged Congress to do something to close the disparity. After all, he once said, women would not be satisfied if allowed to vote in only "three out of four elections."

This is actually good news for business owners and investors. For the government now outlines a course of management designed to cut costs while retaining efficiency and productivity -- fire all the men! Why not? After all, according to the labor secretary, women perform exactly the same work, with exactly the same results as a man yet at only 75 percent of the cost! Think of all the businesses lumbering along while paying men exorbitant salaries, far higher than the amount required to get the job done. What dunderheads!

This is also great news for the NBA. Its highest paid player, Shaquille O'Neal, this year pulls down $17.4 million. Meanwhile, the WNBA's best player, Cynthia Cooper, makes a paltry $75,798. Don't Shaq and Cynthia perform exactly the "same" work? Both play four quarters, 12 minutes each.

The dimensions of the court are the same for both players, and points per shot are equal. Apparently, according to the government, they perform the very same work, yet because of male chauvinism, the Lakers' management pays Shaq more jack.

Women of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but those smaller paychecks.

Of course, we have some rather untidy women vs. women or women vs. men equity problems to clear up.

For example, Anna Kournikova, the Russian tennis player, is ranked 15th.

American Lindsey Davenport, however, plays better, wins more, and enjoys a higher ranking. Yet the movie-star beautiful Kournikova graced the covers of magazines as disparate as "Forbes," "Sports Illustrated for Women," "Esquire," "Vogue," and "Cosmopolitan." "Sports Illustrated" called her the No. 1 "downloaded" athlete, with some 20,000 Web pages devoted specifically to her. Yet the less than drop-dead gorgeous Davenport gets comparatively few endorsements. A clear-cut case of intra-gender wage discrimination!

And then there's NBC's Katie Couric of the "Today" show. She reportedly earns $10 million annually. Her poor co-host Matt Lauer, however, scrapes by on a mere $2.5 mil. Again, both perform exactly the "same" work. The "Today" show runs two hours, and the co-hosts split airtime fairly evenly. They take up the same space on the couch, yet Couric earns four times the amount earned by Lauer. A clear-cut case of reverse-gender wage discrimination!

ABC's Barbara Walters earns an annual salary of $10 million. She produces and appears on the daily talk show "The View," alongside several other women, none of whom come close to earning what Walters pulls down. "View" co-hosts, grab an attorney and file a class action lawsuit!

Bottom line, the government's assertion is nonsense. When one compares apples to apples -- women with the same experience, number of years on the job with no time out for having and raising children -- women earn the same as men. Researcher Diana Furchtgott-Roth with the American Enterprise Institute says, "No serious academic study claims that equally qualified women earn 73 cents to a man's dollar." She cites a University of Michigan study, showing that an apple-to-apple comparison finds that women's earnings are 94 percent that of men's. Other studies by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and by the National Science Foundation reached similar conclusions.

The Independent Women's Forum says, "The average wages of women are lower than those of men because the average woman has less work experience and is more likely to choose a lower-paying job that provides flexibility to combine work and family responsibilities." Is this a bad thing? Or should we celebrate the fact that some women voluntarily choose less demanding schedules or part-time work in order to stay home and spend more time rearing their children?

If women truly want broader and better opportunities, try following the advice given by economist Wendy Gramm, who emphasizes an activist economy rather than an activist government: "Indeed, many government programs work against women by weakening the economy or creating employment barriers that are harmful. Requiring certain benefits like maternity leave raises the cost of employing women and may cause marginal companies to close their doors and hire no one at all. The higher costs may make some companies reluctant to hire women."

In the meantime, you bosses out there, conquer your chauvinism in pursuit of the bottom line. Take a look at your work force. If it contains too much testosterone, cut those costs, yet retain productivity.

Fire those men!

Originally published June 8, 2000

© Copyright 2000 by Creators Syndicate

[Robby (imported)]

TESTOSTERONE POISONING: AN INQUIRY (http://www.atticfox.net/NPLinc/testopoison.htm)

by Elias Alias (c)1999

As featured in the "Daily Dish" page of the Brazen Hussies on 2/17/99

The following dissertation was nominated for the Nobel Phallic Peace Award. All scientific research leading to the issuance of this monumental declaration was funded by the Projects Department of MALE EGOS INK™.

Testosterone...... the sex hormone C19H28O2, secreted by the testes, which stimulates the development of male sex organs, secondary sexual traits, and sperm......

2nd edition unabridged, Random House Dictionary of the English Language.

Well, what would Random know anyway, since he stayed in the house all the time? I mean, that testy little definition doesn’t tell us much, now does it? “....stimulates the development of male sex organs”? Whatever could that mean beyond the same feat accomplished by any ordinary man who picks up a skin magazine, right? I mean, sometimes the mere thought of a warm pair of thighs “stimulates the development of male sex organs” as well as Random House claims testosterone does, so what informative discovery therein revealed ascribes any special value in the ontological incarnation of testosterone? Ah, you see my point. Which brings me to your point, the point at which you accused me of having testosterone poisoning!

But let us press on. The next section of the Random House definition is.....”, secondary sexual traits,”. This at least does tell us something. It tells us, that if there is a secondary sexual trait, then by direct inference there must be a first, or, primary, sexual trait. I suppose these two sexual traits are fulfilled within the social matrix of mores and morays, intrinsic to the culture, of a man’s sexual relationship with his wife, (the primary sexual trait), and his sexual relationship with his girlfriend, (the secondary sexual trait). What Random House hoped we would not deduce from this is the existence of a third-rate sexual trait, manifested when a man has a sexual relationship with another feature of his own body, such as his hand. (An interesting juggle of the archetypical masculine need to conquer the female while that need is being matched by, and joined in parallel orbit with, the opposing fear of the ovaric molecule he suspects lurks within vaginas.) It’s that Clinton thang all over again: one squirt of guilt can cause a misfire between synapses in that part of the brain which assesses sexuality and which, when asked duly and directly why, in heaven’s name, they call it “oral sex” if it isn’t sex? simply associates the whole dilemma into having some hot pizza. It isn’t testosterone which makes a man commit acts of third-rate sex while imagining his hand has just taken off its blouse and got to its knees before his anamaic erection; not at all, for as we all know, testosterone hangs out in the tubulars of the scrotum, not in the palm of his hand. So again we must conclude that testosterone is just a benign accusation invented by feminists, another brazen brandishing of their collective unconscious’ dream of the castration of their would-be conqueror. “If you can’t cut it off, keep it confused” seems to be their mantra. “Make all men believe their god-given promptings to promiscuity are merely the effects of a bad batch of ballsy molecules gone berserk in their blood.” That is what the feminists want men to think. That it’s a physical thing. Mothers have been conditioning their boy-children for countless generations that their attraction to the girls is a healthy thing, yet, when a boy makes a pass at a girl, from that very attraction, the girl invariably denies the advance, ascribing it to hormonal imbalance; she accuses him of having too much testosterone.

Primary sexual trait; secondary sexual trait; third-rate sexual trait. The unholy trinity with which the human male must live, and among which he must choose one or more as his own traits, or risk being seen as a traitor to his sex. But we digress.

The third section of the Randy House definition of testosterone blithely states: “and sperm.” Nothing like a blunt, dryly inserted afterthought finally tucked onto the end of an otherwise fluent discourse of the existential properties of testosterone, eh? “...., and sperm.” That’s it. That’s all. Sperm. As if all us boys and girls know what sperm is. No description of the limbless little tail-wrigglers, no stated purpose given for the salmon-like surge up the stalk of life toward the etheric vulvic void in which nothingness is known to contain totality! Nosiree! Just, “....,and sperm.”

Well, we here at MALE EGOS INK™ decided to look further into the substance of the matter than Random House elected to. Our job, after all, is the preservation and edification of the Male Ego, and, as might be universally, even unisexually, agreed, anything pertinent to the penis is an appropriate priority. We caught a couple of sperm and interviewed them. They were reluctant to talk at first, and appeared to be concerned that we were delaying them from some errand to gather eggs. We soothed their anxiety by offering them a poached egg on milk toast, which they took to readily. From atop the yoke, they demonstrated their satisfaction by answering our questions. They settled in; well, ok; they squiggled in. They joked between themselves like good ol’ sperm will do when they’ve found their egg, and they spoke candidly with our researchers. This, in an eggshell, is what we learned.

There are two kinds of sperm. Good sperm and bad sperm; white sperm and black sperm. When primordial man first painted their portraits, he painted them head to tail in a circular wheel. He named his painting “Yin-Yang”. A humble title, to be sure, but a title so simple it stood the testicles (we mean, tests!) of time. Analysis of their portrait reveals their incessant chase and flight; the black sperm is always just about to catch the tail of the white sperm, and the white sperm is always just about to catch the tail of the black sperm. And this whole drama between the good sperm and the bad sperm takes place within, indeed creates by its round-and-round adventure, the circle which everybody knows is the eternal symbol of the female. Appropriately, the symbol of the female is also the shape of an egg. Beyond that and such inference as might arise from meditations thereon, the sperm were hesitant to speak. When asked point blank about testosterone, one of them, (I think it was the black one), replied that testosterone was probably something one finds on a pizza, among the provolone and pepperoni. The other sperm slapped him on the back and laughed, then faced us and said condescendingly, “Ya wanna empty our pockets and see for yourselves that we ain’t got any silly testosterones on us?” Wherewith the other sperm slapped him on the back and, both doubled over in laughter, they both slid off the yolk and expired. We fed them to the cat; a solution only true men of science could have come up with.

So. In conclusion, we the Directors of MALE EGOS INK™ have elected to forward our findings to the Brazen Hussies of the Cyberverse, in hopes that the impeccable logic of our argument shall forever more preclude their resorting to accusing we men of being infected by testosterone poisoning.

[Robby (imported)]

Testosterone Poisoning (http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tw/2001-12-06/cin.html)

Here's an un-fun compendium of manly action-movie clichés.

Behind Enermy Lines, the new Saving Private Ryan-lite rescue saga with Gene Hackman and Owen Wilson, is an oddly telling artifact of the world before September 11. I don't think it would have been particularly engaging before the disaster, but it's hard to say--so much has changed.

What is clear is that right here, right now, a by-the-numbers, testosterone-pumped military action flick set against the desperate final days of a very nasty, very recent war (the Bosnian conflict) just ain't big fun on Saturday night.

Explosions, situation rooms, ruined limbs, heaps of corpses, facial cuts, simulated concussion fronts, woo-woo military technology--the time in which these were good for two hours of amusement seems very far away.

Nothing could have saved this movie from the irony of history, but no matter when Behind Enemy Lines had been released, believable characters would have added something, suspense would have been nice and a female presence welcome. Jets and guns are neat, but finally limited. Even really hard-guy war movies need women, at least offstage: Private Ryan had a mom, and Tom Hanks got to pine for his wife. But our hero here--played acceptably by Wilson--only gets a photo- and trophy-ensconced movie-dad, and not even a reference to a girlfriend. We are in deepest, darkest Guyville.

Some degree of trust in the audience's ability to follow anything beyond cinematic cliché would have also been helpful--the plot, storyboarding and dialogue might have been put together by Microsoft from a database of Westerns, war and action flicks. Worse, anytime anyone has a thought, he states it, or flashes back to the event that inspired it, or, usually, both. This is unfortunate since, in the weeks since September 11, willful stupidity has suddenly gone out of fashion, even among action-movie audiences.

So. We start off aboard a big carrier "Somewhere in the Adriatic Sea"--"Sea" is specified because the filmmakers aren't sure we know what the Adriatic is, even though we can see it's something you can run an aircraft carrier around--populated by restless flyboys who signed up "To storm the beach at Normandy and punch a Nazi in the mouth," but who're stuck playing dumb jokes and eating Jell-o. (This movie has some of the weirdest product placements ever. Do all renegade Serb generals drive Mitsubishi SUVs? Does that mean I should? I mean, the Taliban likes Toyotas. And is it a good thing that a hollow-eyed Muslim girl gives the thirsty downed airman Coke when he asks for water? Beats me.)

Back to our story. The Navy's mission is almost over, which for some reason makes handsome young navigator Lieutenant Burnett (Wilson) and his less good-looking pilot (Gabriel Macht)--guess which one dies right off the bat?--even squirrelier than usual. A gruff but fatherly admiral (Hackman) takes personal notice of Burnett's crummy attitude, which gives you an idea of how little there is to do onboard.

"You should thank God we're not at war," he upbraids Burnett, and we, the audience, wince as one.

Then Burnett and the pilot are shot down--easily the film's best sequence--over a supposedly peaceful Bosnian countryside, and back at the ship the officers stand tensely around the situation room, bemoaning the rough terrain, unpleasant weather and crazy hatreds of the locals. More flinching in the aisles: The rolling mountains and stately woods of Slovakia--where the outdoor scenes were filmed--look like Regent's Park compared to what we've seen of Afghanistan, and the pale-eyed killers are strictly local maniacs doing a little genocidal mopping up.

Frustration over America's inability to help, to have prevented the mass graves from being dug in the first place, plays here as mere background for the nonstop heroics of the laughably bullet-proof blond hero, who takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin' while being shot at by hundreds of crack marksmen and galloping for umpteen miles through territory mined by every working piece of ordnance in Eastern Europe.

(Much of the audience at last Tuesday's screening was giggling about this on the way out of the theater and into the cold night. "Oh, right," one guy said, "Every time he shoots he offs some dude, but even the sharpshooter guy can't ever hit him." So sad, such skepticism in the young.)

The movie does evoke a sense of dread now and then, but it's mostly by association--the scary woods reminded me of Giancarlo Giannini witnessing a mass execution under the pristine German firs in The Seven Beauties, and of Lena Olin, a concentration-camp survivor in Enemies: A Love Story, lounging around a cottage in the Catskills and saying, "I can't get used to it. All these trees and no Nazis."

The most harrowing bits of an urban warfare sequence are lifted--right down to the handheld camerawork and sounds of panic-breathing--straight out of Welcome to Sarajevo, a film in which no one is bulletproof. In moments like these, the terror of death comes close, but here it feels like one more cinematic trick. Mostly, Behind Enemy Lines treats war as a video game--you've got your Terminator-esque magic-vision snap-zooms, your heavily blued-out lighting (real men have no time for the red end of the spectrum) and your muscular, Uzi-like edits.

And the war here isn't hell, it's fun. Or it was.

[Robby (imported)]

Demonizing Men (http://cracker.com.au/viewthread.aspx?t ... ryid=11071)

Posted on 16 Dec 04 - 10:46 PM By Christianj (http://cracker.com.au/viewprofile.aspx? ... ryid=11071)

Antonia Feitz

Feminism's ugly face - it hasn't got a rational mind - is rarely exposed in the mainstream media. But consider the following quotes. If similar writings were directed at any minority group, or even at women, they would be called hate speech:

"The first males were mutants... the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female. MAN: ... an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ... TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning".[1]

"NOW is the time to drop a boot heel in the groin of patriarchy. NOW IS THE TIME TO FIGHT BACK. NO GOD. NO MASTER. NO LAWS" [2]

"Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down". [3]

The hatred and viciousness is blatant. But men don't count anymore and it's perfectly acceptible to vilify them. Increasingly they are being regarded and treated as second class citizens, being freely discriminated against in the divorce courts and in employment via affirmative action programmes.

Most people would dismiss this hate and contempt as unrepresentative of feminism; they would say that these are the utterances of extremists. They are not. US Justice Robert Bork has recognized that feminism is not a reformist movement any more, but a revolutionary one. [4] Feminism's goals of equity have long been achieved; radical feminism now seeks to overthrow the existing society. Proof? The demonization of men. Merely discriminating against men is not enough to achieve the feminist transformation of society where a 'family' is defined as a woman and her children and men are irrelevant. To achieve this goal feminists now seriously allege that maleness itself is some sort of pathology unsuited to civilized life in the twentieth century.

Feminism contemptuously dismisses the achievements of Western civilization in art, music, literature, democracy, science and technology as the product of 'dead white males' - and sneeringly refers to that magnificent cultural heritage as 'their' (i.e. male) culture. And they plan to overthrow 'their' culture and replace it with their own socialist hell where every facet of life will be regimented. There are some chilling prospects in store for men if the feminists win this particular battle in the Great Cultural Wars of the twentieth century . For instance, Martha Burk who is the president of the Center for Advancement of Public Policy in Washington DC, and editor of the Washington Feminist Faxnet has proposed that men's fertility be controlled. How? By mandatory contraception beginning at puberty: men would be forced to have contraceptive implants along with compulsory DNA fingerprinting. Doctors would have to report a man who refused the implants or sought medical attention after trying to remove them himself. [5] This is not sci-fi; this is now.

The contempt for males is everwhere, from the unsubtle brainwashing into appropriate (read 'female') behaviour in pre-schools, through to the corruption of the judiciary, with male judges being sent to re-education camps to purge them of alleged sexism. In universities, what were once academic disciplines - such as history and literature - have been transformed into courses which 'deconstruct' history and literature for 'evidence' of oppression of women and minorities. George F. Will has shown how America's much loved nature poet, Emily Dickinson, has had her work 'deconstructed' so that her charming poetic references to peas and flower buds are exposed as really being "encoded messages of feminist rage, exulting clitoral masturbation to protest the prison of patriarchal sex roles". And if that's not enough, "Jane Austen's supposed serenity masks boiling fury about male domination". [6]

Such ideological ravings can easily be dismissed as being of no consequence outside academia, but the sentiments behind them fuel feminism's destructive assault on the lives of ordinary men and women. The strategies to effect the demonization of men are stereotyping and disinformation. In plain English, labelling and lies. Men are so routinely stereotyped as 'violent' now, that the slander is rarely challenged. For instance, commenting on the higher agression levels of males, a correspondent to the Australian wrote: "One would expect, then, that a gene would exist for 'male' traits such as violence". [7] But aggression is not synonymous with violence. In all cultures male aggression is usually sublimated into productive creativity, energy and drive. Moreover violence is not exclusive to males; unsocialized people of both sexes are likely to be violent. Yet the lies keep being disseminated.

Take rape. Organizing their annual "Reclaim the Night" marches, Australian feminists claim with a straight face that one in four women have been raped. It's instructive to look around while shopping at the supermarket, attending a wedding, enjoying a concert, worshipping at church, running a fete, or whatever: if a quarter of Australian women have been raped and traumatized, surely it would show? But this is where the disinformation comes in: 'rape' dosn't mean the same thing for feminists as it does for the rest of us. In the US (where else?) Mary Koss first came up with the now universally accepted feminist claim that "one in four women have been raped". Ms magazine commissioned her to do a national rape survey on college campuses. She and her associates interviewed some three thousand college women and found that 15.4 per cent of women had been raped, and 12.1 per cent had been victims of attempted rape, giving a grand total of 27.5 per cent of women who had suffered rape or attempted rape. [8]

Not so well known is the fact that as Koss' definition of 'rape' included women who simply had second thoughts in the morning because they'd been drunk or stoned at the time. As well, only a quarter of the women she regarded as having been raped agreed that they had been raped! According to Professor Christina Hoff Somers, 49 per cent of those surveyed said it was 'miscommunication', 14 per cent said it was a 'crime but not rape', and 11 per cent said they 'don't feel victimized'. Yet Australian feminists continue to feed the media, the politicians, the bureaucrats and even the churches with this arrant nonsense that one in four Australian women has been raped.

The other key area of feminist disinformation is domestic violence. It is not co-incidental that there has been a worldwide campaign against domestic violence; it is a massive campaign to demonize men. President Clinton has given the lies his authority, telling Americans on March 21 1995 that according to the FBI a woman is battered every 12 seconds. The FBI does not even keep figures on domestic violence, and within hours the White House secretary, Michael McCurry was forced to apologize. [9] But the damage had been done.

All decent people agree that domestic violence is certainly an evil, but the feminists have simultaneously grossly overstated its occurance and denied the facts of female violence. Most governments uncritically accept the feminist propaganda that domestic violence is simply a matter of violent males abusing helpless women and children. Not so. There is now an abundance of research which shows that most abusing men are in abusing couple relationships. On 22nd January this year the (English) Guardian reported on the findings of a Domestic Violence Home Office Research Study which found that both sexes are equally likely to suffer domestic violence, that men are increasingly the victims and just as likely as women to be assaulted by a partner.

Erin Pizzey, the founder of the women's shelter movement in England, has said the same for years but has been studiously ignored by feminists and bureaucrats. Across the Atlantic, Patricia Pearson (1997) has documented the violence of American women.[10] They are responsible for the majority of infant and child homicides; the majority of child abuse; fifty per cent of the violence against the elderly; and commit almost half the assaults on intimate partners. They also instigate violence more frequently than men. As well, it is documented that there is a high rate of domestic violence among lesbians.

Recently Elaine Evans, the co-ordinator of the New South Wales Women's Legal Research Centre, objected to the NSW government's plan to fund a counselling service for abusive men. [11] In saying "The poor hard done-by men issue has been the flavour of the month, but the money would be much better directed towards women who are the victims", she has simultaneously demonstrated her anti-male bias, and unwittingly exposed feminism for the sham it is. Feminists are just using domestic violence as yet another arena to transform society according to their pernicious ideology. Proof? Don't hold your breath for the likes of Elaine Evans to be concerned about the plight of abused men, let alone the children who suffer at their mothers' hands. Feminists have no interest in the truth. They even deny it exists.

Objective truth, logic, standards of evidentiary proof, linear thinking are all dismissed as the "White Male System" of rationality which is in no way superior to intuitive and emotional "women's ways of knowing". [12] If radical feminists were given a state to establish their utopia it's arguable whether they'd even manage to attain a stone age culture.

References from A Feminist Dictionary, ed. Kramarae and Treichler (Pandora Press,1985) Profane Existence, May/June 1992, p.1, quoted in Robert Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline (New York: Regan Books,1997), p.212 Letter to the Herald-Sun, Melbourne, 9 February 1996, signed "Liberated Women [sic], Boronia, Victoria" Bork, p.195 http://members.tripod.com/~adviser1/medusa/ch07.html (http://cracker.com.au/clickthru.aspx?ta ... ers.tripod. com%2f%7eadviser1%2fmedusa%2fch07.html) George F. Will, "Literary Politics," Newsweek, April 22 1991, p.72, quoted in Bork, p.212 The Australian, 24/9/98 Christina Hoff Somers, Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women (New York : Touchstone, 1995), p.211 Christina Hoff Somers, "The feminist Camelot", National Review, September 2 1996, p.7 Review at: http://www.razberry.com/raz/laframboise ... as_bad.htm (http://cracker.com.au/clickthru.aspx?ta ... azberry.co m%2fraz%2flaframboise%2ffull_texts%2fbooks%2fwhen_ she_was_bad.htm) The Australian, 2/2/99 Bork, p.209

http://www.harrysnews.com/tgDemonizingMen.htm (http://www.harrysnews.com/tgDemonizingMen.htm)

[Robby (imported)]

"Testosterone Poisoning." (http://www.treebyleaf.com/Testosterone-G.html)

Familiar with the phrase?

Why?

We've accepted into common parlance the idea that there is something innately wrong with being male. We still speak of testosterone as this magical essence of maleness, and we're also speaking of it as a poison.

Testosterone can make a person more likely to fight, and more likely to make love, and more likely to play.

We all have testosterone. We all have more of it when we're healthy, when we're physically active; we get a spike of testosterone when we get a spike of happiness and confidence.

We as a culture are starting to accept the idea that a man feeling powerful and confident is a bad, dangerous thing... that a man feeling happy is not to be trusted.

Have you heard about the correlation between the Super Bowl and domestic violence?

If you have,you've heard lies. There was no study, there is no correlation, all the headlines eventually boiled down to a new entry for www.urbanlegends.com (http://www.urbanlegends.com/).

Susan Faludi, a journalist who is careful about checking her sources, has a very different theory about domestic violence. Her work exposed her to men convicted for domestic violence. Time and again she heard these men speak of the power they felt when battering-- and of how completely powerless they felt the rest of the time.

It occurred to her, in complete contradiction to the beliefs of her colleages and the premise of the rehab program, that maybe the key danger wasn't the feeling of power experienced during the assault. Maybe the real motivator and danger was the powerlessness experienced leading up to the assault.

Maybe what was untrustworthy about these men was the absence of confidence and happiness in their lives.

A desperate man is most likely to hit a woman, even if she is not the cause of his desperation. A frustrated parent is more likely to hit a child, even if the child is not the cause of the frustration. A rat backed into a corner is likely to bite any hand that reaches for it. This shouldn't be a revolutionary idea; it's plain common sense.

In Hollywood, in the comic books, showing somebody who is happy and secure while doing unprovoked damage to others is shorthand for saying that here is a real monster, completely irredeemable, beyond the pale of humanity.

It is true that any man may be a monster, because it is true that any human may be a monster. But it is obscene to speak of all men as monsters.

The whole idea of "testosterone poisoning" is as insulting to individuals, and as dangerous to our society, as the idea that premenstrual syndrome renders women unfit for public office and incapable of consistent professional behavior.

[Robby (imported)]

Testosterone and Human Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior (http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage ... terone.htm)

Of the myriad substances that are required for humans to sustain life, perhaps none is more maligned and misunderstood than testosterone. Testosterone is essential for proper growth and functioning, including development of the brain, emergence of primary and secondary sexual characteristics, and muscular growth and development. Not only does an insufficient amount of testosterone hinder development, but low levels of testosterone are linked to listlessness, depression, impotence, and even suicide. In spite of its critical role in development and normal functioning, testosterone has earned a reputation as an undesirable substance. Men who behave in an especially obnoxious manner are said to suffer from "testosterone poisoning." Is there any truth to the bad press associated with testosterone?

Research conducted by Robert Josephs and James Pennebaker and their students has focused on understanding the psychological effects of circulating testosterone. Testosterone's relationship to human behavior is quite powerful, but it is also much more complex than previously thought. Indeed, the claim that testosterone is a bad thing may be anything but true. We are discovering that under a variety of conditions, higher testosterone levels can lead to better intellectual performance, greater task persistence, and higher levels of cooperation. Another very promising and brand new line of research is investigating the relationship between fluctuations in testosterone as they relate language and language use.

[Robby (imported)]

HP loses CEO to testosterone poisoning (http://memex.naughtons.org/archives/2005/02/11/1682)

So Hewlett Packard, or HP as it prefers to be known these days, finally dumped (http://www.economist.com/agenda/display ... id=3646125) its abrasive CEO, Carly Fiorina. (She got $21 million in severance: would that I should be so dumped.) But the company is apparently still on the crazed trajectory on which she had launched it. HP used to be a company which had a great printer business and an indifferent PC business. Fiorina’s Big Idea was straight MBA-rookie stuff — go for a big merger/takeover. The unlucky bride was Compaq, a PC maker in terminal decline. It didn’t work. HP is now a company with (still) a vibrant printer business and a duff PC business. Seven wasted years. What I hadn’t quite realised was how hated she was in the company. HP was famous for its civilised, unaggressive collegial atmosphere. Carly was primadonnish and abrasive (and female). A measure of the antagonism she aroused is Invert Parody.com (http://www.roundmountaingroup.net/possible/fidora.htm), a satirical website devoted to the affairs of the PH company and its abrasive female CEO Karla Fidora. Here’s a flavour:

“She came to PH from the Great American Wire and Cable Company, where she led the divesture of the firm’s wire and cable businesses.??She later admitted ‘that left us with just the Great American Company and no real products. Clearly we should have thought that one through a little more.’ She then focused on finding Great American a great new name and facilitated its strategic plunge into bankruptcy.

Fidora was then hired to re-invert the PH Corporation, a company known for little more than world class products and happy employees. It was a status quo that worried competitors and Fidora was committed to turning it around. With a twin strategy of abandoning high margin businesses or selling them to competitors; and acquiring struggling companies in low margin industries at exorbitant premiums, she was able to execute one of the great turnarounds in corporate history.

Fidora was a favorite of employees and personally helped tens of thousands of them move onto their dream of early retirement or new careers in the fast food industry.”

Paul Sraffa, of the Institute for the Future, observed of Fiorina that she had “the worst case of testosterone poisoning of any CEO I’ve ever seen”.

[Robby (imported)]

A Man's Answers To Every Question A Woman Ever Asks (http://www.getamused.com/jokes/018284.html)

1. WHY ARE MEN SUCH JERKS?

It's a testosterone thing. Much similar to your PMS thing, we men suffer from testosterone poisoning. Why do you think the average life span of a male is typically 10 years shorter (and it's not just from all the bitching and nagging we have to endure)? Hormone modifies behavior. We're just misunderstood.

2. WHY DO MEN ALWAYS HAVE TO OGLE AT OTHER WOMEN?

Again, this is a testosterone thing. Do you honestly think that all the testosterone just fell out of our bodies the moment we met you? Besides, women do it as well. Women are just much better at not getting caught. I'm fairly certain it's some sort of photographic memory deal. Women take one quick look and memorize it for later reference. Since men lack this ability, we try to burn it into our memory by staring as much as we can.

3. WHY DO MEN ALWAYS TOUCH THEMSELVES, ESPECIALLY IN PUBLIC?

We occasionally need to adjust "junior" and make him happy. It's much like adjusting your bra. Being in public is just an added bonus.

4. WHY DO MEN ALWAYS SAY SUCH STUPID THINGS?

We like to. It's actually a whole lot of fun to see our partner frustrated by a few simple (and well chosen) words.

5. WHY ARE MEN SO UNCOMMUNICATIVE?

You'd learn to keep your big mouth shut too if every time you open it you get into trouble with your partner.

6. WHY DO MEN HAVE TO ACT LIKE SUCH RETARDS?

Well, we don't actually have to; we do it because we enjoy it. It's the old fashioned pride in a job well done that's missing in so much of the world nowadays.

7. WHY CAN'T MEN JUST SHARE THEIR FEELINGS?

Do we look like women to you? Why is it so hard to understand that men and women are different? How are we supposed to share how we feel when we have no idea how we feel? Unless we're experiencing some extreme emotion like rage, hatred, disgust, or a brick on our foot, we have no idea how we feel. Personally, I get a headache whenever I try to figure out how I feel.

8. WHY CAN'T MEN CUDDLE MORE (I.E. LIE DOWN AND HUG)?

Please... How many hours do you think there is in a day? We oblige you as much as we can, but who the hell (besides women) can stand lying around for hours on end? We men... Men hunters... Need go roam... Starve in cave... Must go find wildebeest...Now sitting on our asses for hours on end on the other hand is a whole other story.

9. HOW CAN MEN SIT ON THEIR ASSES ALL DAY WITHOUT MOVING?

Men have very powerful sets of sitting muscles developed by evolution that enable us to sit for extended periods of time without getting tired. In prehistoric times, it was often necessary to sit in one spot for extended periods of time while hunting for prey. The more successful hunters were able to sit very still for very extended periods of time thereby passing on this ability to their sons. The fidgety types were all gobbled up by saber toothed tigers etc. The end result is that almost all modern men are born with this innate ability.

10. WHY CAN'T MEN JUST SAY "I LOVE YOU?"

Men are taught from a tender young age to be self-sufficient. To say that we love you is equivalent to saying that we need you. Most men consider that a character fault. It's not easy to admit to one's own character faults.

11. WHY DO MEN SAY "I LOVE YOU" WHEN THEY HARDLY KNOW ME?

Ho, Ho, Ho... Aren't you special? Well, some men think it's a sure fire way to get into your pants. Surprisingly, it actually still works quite well.

12. WHY DOESN'T MY PARTNER EVER ANSWER ME?

We just simply don't have the energy to answer every single one of your questions. If we think we do not have the answer, or that you will not like the answer, we simply remain quiet and save the energy for other things.

13. WHY WON'T MEN EVER PICK UP AFTER THEMSELVES?

Why should we? It doesn't really bother us that much. Besides, we know darn well you'll pick it up.

14. WHAT'S WITH ALL THE BELCHING AND FARTING?

This usually only occurs after months of courting. It's our way to let you know that we're comfortable with you. Believe it or not, its actually a sign of affection. Besides, holding it for extended periods of time gives us stomach cramps.

15. WHY DO MEN HATE SHOPPING?

It's an evolutionary thing. Men hunt. Women gather. We just want to go out, kill it, and bring it back. Who wants to spend hours and hours to look at things we have no intention of killing? Err... buying?

[n3rf (imported)]

Thanks for terrific compounded analysis and terrific thoughts and writing.

I think I agree with You. So cutting my balls off is not what we want is it ??

Johan N3RF