Tuesday, 22 July 2014

Bullying, 'Hazing', 'Banter' etc



2 [heyz] Show IPA
verb (used with object), hazed, haz·ing.
1. to subject (freshmen, newcomers, etc.) to abusive or humiliating tricks and ridicule.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hazing
It's a myth that bullying, hazing or any other variations (emotional or physical) are good for toughening up up, or 'turning boys into men'.  Bullying does psychological damage AND physiological damage to the men who experience it.  Physiological damage is in the form of irreparable brain damage:
- Damage to the Corpus Callosum (a bundle of nerves that joins the two hemispheres of the brain).
- Damage to the PrefrontalCortex (the front third of the brain that is apparently responsible for higher thinking, personality, and 'executive function', i.e. masculine decision making)
- Damage to the Hippocampus (apparantly responsible for memory, spatial awareness, and inhibitions)

Here's the text that inspired this post:
The only neurobiological condition inherited by boys that affects later violence is they have a smaller corpus callosum, the part of the brain that connects the right and the left hemisphere.16 The larger corpus callosum of infant girls allows them to work through trauma and neglect more easily than boys. Furthermore, boys who are abused had a 25 percent reduction in sections of the corpus callosum, while girls did not.17 This means boys actually need more love and caretaking than girls as they grow up. If they do not receive enough interpersonal attention from their caretakers they suffer from damaged prefrontal cortices (self control, empathy) and from hyperactive amygdalae (fear centers), their corpus callosum is reduced further, and they have reduced serotonin levels (calming ability) and increased corticosterone production (stress hormone). All these factors make them have weak selves, reduced empathy, less control over impulsive violence and far more fears than girls.18
The central psychobiological question, then, is this: Are boys given more love and attention than girls by their caretakers in order to help them offset their greater needs? The answer, of course, is just the opposite: boys are given less care and support, from everyone in the family and in society, and they are abused far more than girls, so by the time they are three years of age they become twice as violent as girls.19 Boys’ greater violence by this time, including their propensity to form dominance gangs and to endlessly “play war,” are the results of their greater abuse and distancing by adults and being subject to demands to “grow up” and “be manly” and “not be a crybaby” and not need attachments—attitudes taught by their parents, teachers and coaches. By age four boys’ play is full of provocations that test their self-worth: “At 4 years of age, girls’ insults to one another are infrequent and minor…Boy/boy insults, however, are numerous and tough.”20 The so-called “aggressiveness” usually ascribed to boys is in fact wholly defensive, as they try to ward off their greater feelings of insecurity and hopelessness.21 It isn’t “aggression” males display; it’s bravado—defensive testing and disproof of their fears.
Source: http://www.psychohistory.com/originsofwar/02_whymalesaremoreviolent.html

And lest you think that this only occurs in men there's also evidence that Corpus-Callosum shrinkage correlates with women who have Bi-Polar disorder:
Corpus callosum abnormalities in women with borderline personality disorder and comorbid attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2077349/
Young boys need more love than they are getting, or have possibly ever got, from their caretakers (parents, guardians, teachers, and other people who take responsibility for them on a day-to-day basis).  Hazing and intimidating style initiations are not a form of love.  If boys don't get enough love then they suffer lasting psychological damage and irreparable physiological damage.  Damage that not only effects them personally but also effects the people around them particularly when they grow up and have children of their own or work in positions of power.  Saddam Hussein is one example of this:
Saddam Hussein, like so many dictators, had an unbelievably traumatic childhood.38 His mother tried to abort him by hitting her abdomen with her fists and cutting herself with a kitchen knife, yelling, "In my belly I'm carrying a Satan!" She gave the infant Saddam away to his uncle, a violent man who beat the boy regularly, calling him "a son of a cur" and training him to use a gun and steal sheep. Saddam committed his first homicide at eleven. His political career centered on the murder of his fellow countrymen, and he particularly enjoyed watching the torture and execution of officers who had fought with him.
Source: http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln02_gulf.html

Prince Vladimir III of Wallachia, AKA Vlad the Impaler, is another example of what an abusive childhood can result in (emphasis added):
In 1444, at the age of thirteen, young Vlad and his brother Radu were sent to Adrianople as hostages, to appease the Sultan. He remained there until 1448, at which time he was released by the Turks, who supported him as their candidate for the Wallachian throne. Vlad’s younger brother apparently chose to remain in Turkey, where he had grown up. (Radu is later supported by the Turks as a candidate for the Wallachian throne, in opposition to his own brother, Vlad.)

In Adrianople, Vlad was locked up in prison and often whipped and beaten because of his verbal abuse towards his captors and his stubborn behavior, while his younger brother Radu the Handsome was much easier to control. Radu converted to Islam entered the service of Sultan Murad II's son, Mehmed II (later known as the Conqueror), and was allowed into the Ottoman royal court.

These years had a great influence on Vlad's character and led to Vlad's well-known hatred for the Ottoman Turks, the Janissary, his brother Radu the Handsome for becoming an Ottoman, and the young Ottoman prince Mehmed II (even after he became sultan). According to McNally and Florescu, he was jealous of his fathers preference for his elder brother, Mircea II and half brother,Vlad Calugarul, he also distrusted his own father for trading him to the Turks and betraying the Order of the Dragon's oath to fight them. It was in Turkey where Vlad first witnessed the act of impalement (the Ottomans often beheaded traitors and deserters).
Source: http://vladiiitheimpaler.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/vlad-impaler-dracula-life.html
(This is a prime example of the scientific law: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"; and also the moral law: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.")

It makes one look at the victims like Saddam Hussein and Prince Vladimir in a different light: less as cartoon-like monsters and more like human beings who have responded to a given situation.

It also makes one look at the social commentators (on the internet and in the MSM) who mindlessly attack people like Saddam Hussein (call them butchers etc) in a different light, because clearly these commentators do not think about these people as human beings.

Now I'm not arguing that we should all make daisy chains and sit around singing #Kumbaya# like a bunch of pacifistic hippies, excusing every indecent act we witness as a result of childhood trauma, because that would be calamitous for other reasons (e.g. it would allow wilfully malevolent people to get away with wrong-doing), I'm arguing that boys are sensitive and need love, respect, and freedom to express themselves in various forms and if they don't get that then they will suffer psychological and irreparable physiological damage because of it.  Hazing, testing, bullying, toughening-up, or whatever you want to call it, does nothing to help.

P.S. The originator of 'Psycho-History', Lloyd DeMause, has a mix of information of varying veracity so if you read any of his work (of which there is a lot) be wary of this fact.  For instance while he asserts that mothers are the principle abusers of children (which can be confirmed by THIS web page) but he also peddles the myth that '1 in 3 women are raped' (which has been du-bunked umpteen times in the Manosphere/Androsphere, like HERE and HERE; even some economists are tiring of the myth).  So just be wary that his approach is original but his data is somewhat dubious.



  1. I read DeMause years ago and yes, he is uneven but I think he got a lot of things right. I am a bit dubious about his claims of that much child sex abuse.

  2. Yeah, it might be a case that he's trying to twist the facts to fit his own theory, which is a shame, because it undermines what is otherwise an original approach to history (from what I've seen & read at least). That's why I decided to put the caveat at the end, because it's a case of a good idea poorly executed.

    Plus there's the predictable Jewish obsession with the holocaust, slandering Germans, Christians, and White people in general. It's a dis-service to every other race that has suffered race hatred or genocide (and most races have).