Why do humans with testicles commit so much crime?

Post Reply New Topic

LkL- I can read! Thats what I meant: men are under atleast as much pressure to CONFORM as women, if not more.

When young guys do risk-taking behavior its usually to fit in with peer pressure. It may appear to be "nonconformist" behaviour, but its anything but.

In the fifties, before the gender roles got blurred, it was the housewives who were expected to use self expression as part of their job of being a stay-at-home homemakers in decorating the house and so forth.

The man's role of submitting to the hierarchies of the outside world demanded conformity.

And where in society do you see these men you speak of who are being rewarded for being nonconformists per se anyway?

You must be talking about Mars.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3prywv/

the Pacific northwest of the US. The boys held up as heroes were the ones who stood out: the smartest, the fastest, the strongest. Girls who are too good at anything are advised to tone it down, lest they threaten fragile male egos (and if they don't, they're seen as lesbians - not an inherently bad thing, but if you're attracted to boys, it doesn't do you any good if they think you're competing against them for the other girls).
I'm not saying that there's no pressure to conform on guys, or I didn't mean it that way; both guys and women who fall too far out of their gender stereotypes are often bullied and treated with disgust. What I'm saying is that being too good at something was one of the 'out of gender' factors than can cause a girl to be bullied.

Risky behavior by boys is seeking admiration and status, but that's not the same as trying to conform. If a boy is doing the bare minimum of the risky behavior that his social group considers acceptable, that's conforming; if he's getting into trouble for 'gangster' or 'pimp,' (note how those terms are now terms of admiration?), which is what this thread was about, he's seeking status because he's rewarded by his peers for acting out and standing out.


Dude, being a forced housewife isn't expressive whether you decorate or not - unless your entire goal in life is to be a home decorator.

I grew up there too. And guess what? Girls who were good at things(especially in the 1990s, following the "year of the woman" and "taking our daughters to work")were praised for breaking out of the mold of the stereotypical ditsy housewife-to-be. All these things you're talking about when it comes to how women are treated really don't apply the same way to women born after the 2nd wave feminist movement. They were told they could do anything and be anything the wanted; in addition to being inherently special simply because they're female. The fact that girls conform and are less likely to follow the rules as led to them being far more successful in schools and now there are more girls in college and who attend college overall than boys.

I've been a lifelong resident of the Pacific Northwest, and I must say, I haven't seen anything out of the ordinary about the way girls and boys are raised here.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I don't know, but I suspect cowards commit crimes as well.

Do you even recognize the internal inconsistency in the paragraph above, especially the last sentence? Do you not recognize that that statement hurts your argument?

I don't think that there's anything unusual about this area; I was taking as literal Visagrunt's question about where I came from.

Okay.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Yes, in fact, I did.

What I meant to say is that the fact that girls seem to be better at following rules and persuasion by kissing ass(when necessary) is perhaps a big reason why they are doing far better in school than boys. Boys tend not to conform, and as a result they're being penalized for it in the school system. The pressure to conform to the 50s ideal for girls has long since subsided in this region. Women(and girls) tend to conform naturally and don't need the external pressure-that's what I'm getting at.

okay-if thats what you mean then you're miss using the word "conformity" and thats why you're confusing everyone here.

Your point is that guys are allowed to make the honor roll, or to become highschool football stars, or whatever- and girls are discouraged standing out like that.

But making the honor roll is being the ultimate conformist.
you're not rebelling against authority. Its laughable to say that honor roll students or HS football stars are being praised for opposing conformity- nothing could be more opposite of the truth.

Furthermore- by achieving individual glory- guys (atleast back in the day) were CONFORMING to society. Just as girls back then were CONFORMING by not achieving too much. So with both genders its still "conforming"- that is- doing what society expects them to do.

You can say "guys are praised for individualism more than girls" maybe, but not for "nonconformity". You shouldve found some less missleading way of stateing your case.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 21 Jun 2012, 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Everyone is going to have a different opinion on whether women or men conform more based on their personal experiences. In the military environment where conformity is required there isn't much apparent observed difference. Compare a female stripper to a male in the military, and one could say that the male was conforming to society, and the female wasn't, whereas in the workplace environment they both were conforming to workplace expectations.

Better to look to controlled studies to attempt to find the differences if they exist. It appears to be a strongly cultural related phenomenon in at least one study that shows that females and males under the age of 19 were equally likely to conform to expectations whereas in an adult population females were significantly more likely to conform.

Per that one study, testicles don't likely have much to do with it, considering the level of testosterone in puberty into the late teenage years.

http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/10/3/203.abstract

http://clinicallypsyched.com/gender-conformity-sexual-orientation-women-genetic-traits/

And here is another study that shows that females and males who don't conform to gender roles are influenced by genetics and environment.





So per this study gender non-conformity appears to be both genetic and environmentally related.

Per conformity between the genders in this study it would be impossible to say who was conforming to expectations and who wasn't, because apparently where there may be a genetic determination, it isn't necessarily a decision that is completely one of environmental determination and/or choice.

And beyond this non-gender conforming roles are not always indicative of sexual orientation, particularly among women in close to 70% of those studied, and up to 50% in males. Genetics though, could still play a role, in the non-conformance to gender roles regardless of sexual orientation, or gender.

Gender roles, are just one area of conformity. There are many other areas where one gender might conform more than another gender depending on individual and circumstance.

It appears to be too complicated of an issue to make a generalized comment on gender, across the human race. Culture and genetics play a role, per the research that exists on the issue.

As one could imagine a Saudi women could potentially be more conforming than A Saudi man, in general, but in a Scandinavian society or among the San Bushmen, that is much more egalitarian in nature, whatever differences that might be apparent would be strongly influenced by different cultural expectations.

Not only that, but it is possible that the stereotype in Saudi Arabia would be that women commit more crimes, because they are more strongly restricted by the law in that country, and therefore more likely to err from the requirements of the law. If so, they could be looked at as non-conformists per that specific aspect of expectations, per the women that commit the crimes in that society, although per the standards of egalitarian societies, they conform much more as a gender comparing the patriarchal societies and the egalitarian societies.

A similar association applies in a country like the US where strong Patriarchal elements exist in some segments of the country, like Evangelical Christians where there is a strong cultural expectation for both genders to conform, as opposed to "liberal" areas of the northeast, where a male would be accepted as conforming as a metro-sexual by some and seen as non-conforming by others.

And even more unlikely accepted by the Evangelical Christians, although I would dare to say the same doesn't apply to some of their "polished" metro-sexual looking leaders, as judged through external appearance, and even among inherent behavior where some attempt to portray non-conformist approximated behavior per their own genetic nature, while at the same time attempt to conform to cultural expectations. That is not an issue, specific to the leaders of that specific religion, where in all religions pastors/priests have strong cultural expectations placed upon them.

Genetics and environment definitely makes a difference in whether or not someone is conforming or not conforming, but it is not an issue clearly evidenced as an overall gender trait.

We can make a general association between the rough and tumble play among the genders,, because it is observable in large groups of young children, across cultures, however anything else associated with Gender is much more difficult to determine, because of the wide range of genetic and environmental influences. There isn't as much physical sexual dimorphism noted across some countries of the world as there is in others. That's one gender difference that can reliably be measured, as well, across countries.

Generally we can expect, both males and females to conform at higher levels, when there are strong cultural expectations for conformity, and the opposite when there is not.

Cultural expectations are not nearly as clear as they used to be, in US culture; not too surprising that the first study above didn't find much difference among genders, per conformity, in the younger generation, where cultural expectations have changed a great deal in the last several decades, between the genders.

Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing, overall for the human race, when expectations have fewer parameters. The fastest growing demographic of prisoners in the US are females. A lot has changed in Society in the US in the last several decades, and that is one of the factors associated with that change. Expectations and results of those expectations are no longer the same, in many different measures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate



Testicles are a visible difference in females and males per sexual dimorphism, however cultural dimorphism per the genders play a role as well, among those whom are observed and measured as committing crimes as well as those conforming or non-conforming to cultural expectations and/or genetic factors.

The overall stereotype still, in the US, is that females are more conforming than males, and males commit more crimes than females, but it takes much longer for a stereotype to catch up to the realities in culture, because of preconceived notions from decades past that still linger and apply for some, but not for others, in younger generations, as evidenced by association in the first study.

That's an interesting study because it contradicts the preconceived notions of non-conformity based on testicles. And a sign of a society that is moving closer to egalitarianism among the younger generation. Obama, is perhaps the single largest anecdotal phenomenon, that confirms the potential of this continuing change in US culture, boosted by the younger generation, and technological innovations in information technology.

Clinton set the flame in the nineties, and Bush attempted to extinguish it in the 2000's, but it appears that administration failed, and testicles are not nearly as relevant in society as they once were decades ago. Obama is a Microcosm of that cultural change. Romney has provided some evidence that he too is part of that phenomenon in his past, given different circumstances in promoting gay rights and health care reform.

At least per conforming, he sets a standard of one whom has conformed most of his life, not necessarily per his genetic propensity, except when no one in the public was thought to be looking, such as the case when he strapped his dog in a crate on his station wagon roof.

He is likely as metro-sexual leaning as Obama is, just a chameleon of sorts, when circumstances require it. I don't suspect much will change if he is elected, given what appears to be his genetic and ideological perspective, from his earlier decisions when he was addressing a different audience of supporters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney

So in taking a full account of each individuals full political history, and other characteristics, it is possible to view the 2012 presidential elections as the first presidential battle between two metro-sexual leaning candidates, both whom are unique in their ability to provide health care reform for the citizens whom they answered to in office, both as Republican and Democrat.

What does that have to do with humans with testicles committing more crime? An anecdotal association that while stereotypes continue to exist in media reports, the cultural reality is significantly different than what is portrayed, per gender, even per a Republican Candidate for President. Beyond this, given Romney's entire life, he may be more of a metro-sexual leaning candidate than what is often attributed as a characteristic of Obama. Even in his early days in high school as a member of the pep-squad of an all male upper class private school.