Although this is the final article under the series "Male Leadership in
Crisis," there will always be an intense discussion on the subject in
society, church, and school. We are all disturbed about the direction in which
many of our men are going today. We do have a shortage of responsible, educated,
and dignified men in our society. In the past five articles I have discussed
various reasons why there is a male leadership crisis. Centered in my discussion
are these points:
- Male leadership is in crisis not because of the overwhelming
increase of female leaders in our society, but because males have failed to
become team players with females.
- Male leadership is in crisis because many males have not understood the
basic principles of leadership. The focus has been on the exercise of power
and control, management and administration, instead of motivation, nurture,
and transformation. In many families the focus of male leadership has not
been on sharing and caring, but on directing, manipulating, demanding, and
controlling.
- Male leadership is in crisis because society has perpetuated the belief
that males are automatic leaders. Thus, from birth boys have raised to be
"in charge" of people instead of teaching them how to be in charge
of their own lives and to be followers. Hence, we have a society of men who
are filled with steam but have no power. This steam eventually cracks the
males’ fragile ego walls and pours its heat into society in all kinds of
abuse and illegal activity.
TESTOSTERONE ON TRIAL
In most men there seems to be an unconscious drive to dominate, conquer, and
control. We often think of men as aggressors. Is society alone to blame for this
seemly built-in male phenomenon, or is there another answer for it? Why do boys
play with fire trucks and girls play with dolls? Why does it seem so natural for
men to dominate and women to submit? Is this the result of nature (how we are
made) or is it the result of nurture (how we are raised)? Perhaps an answer to
these questions may help us solve our male leadership crisis.
Although hormones and genetics influence human behavior and there are
things that seem to be so natural to us to do, yet I believe that everything we
do is learned–-even how to be men and women. When a male says "a man has
to be a man," he is really speaking about his testicles. In the testicles
is a hormone many call the "masculine hormone" or testosterone. It is
what, many have argued, makes a male a man--an aggressive leader. Laboratory
research has shown that injecting more testosterone into male and female rats
make them more aggressive. Could it be that dominance in males is excusable and
natural because their level of testosterone is higher than that of females? Let
us examine a little closer the hormonal influence on male dominance.
Steven Goldberg, City University Sociologist, in his book ‘Why Men Rule –
A Theory on Male Dominance," shines some light on the subject.
"I have suggested that the anthropological evidence forces us to claim
that the sexual differentiation of dominance tendency is of central importance
to an explanation of the universality of patriarchy, male attainment, and male
dominance; and that both logic and anthropological evidence would seem to
suggest very strongly indeed that sexual neuro-endocrinological differentiation
is of central importance to the differentiation of dominance tendency itself
even if we had no direct neuro-endocrinological evidence whatsoever . . . .
There is an enormous amount of evidence which demonstrates beyond doubt that
the testicularly-generated fetal hormonalization of the male central nervous
system promotes earlier and more extensive maturation of the brain structure
that mediates between male hormones and dominance behavior; this makes the male
hypersensitive to the presence later of the hormone which energizes dominance,
emotions and behavior, and results in his stronger tendency to respond to the
environment with dominance behavior."
Let us not get too excited, men, by thinking that we cannot help dominating
and that this theory implies that we are destined to be leaders. Dr. Goldberg
states that he is "discussing only the directly specifiable, observable,
and describable neuro-endocrinological differences between the sexes and the
behavioral tendencies these neuro-endocrinological differences can be shown to
engender. I am in no way implying that there is some law of nature which
requires that the males of a species should dominate."
Let us reason this through. If the male’s ability to lead depends on
physiology, then his intelligence level would be reduced to that of an animal.
To understand this phenomenon further, it is important to know that boys and
girls have roughly equal testosterone levels, although boys usually demonstrate
a stronger dominance tendency, as well as a greater tendency for rough and
tumble play, fighting, and other male behavior. Most sociologists agree that
masculinization and feminization is not just an outgrowth of hormonal
production, but also that of socialization. I believe that it takes a
combination of effective parenting, individual personality, the community, and
hormone production to create an individual. We cannot blame testosterone for all
the evils in our society.
What should we blame? Who should we blame? I believe that the great force in
character building is society itself. The most influential persons in society on
character building are the "significant others" in our lives--usually
our parents. Traditionally, the most influential parent has been the mother.
Often this influence has not been a good one in the rearing of sons or
daughters.
THE DOMINANT MOTHER
Almost thirty years ago, noted Bahamian psychiatrist, Dr. Timothy McCartney,
in his book "Neuroses in the Sun" vividly described the
conditions of the Bahamian family and the male dilemma. He strongly suggested
then that the lack of male presence in the families was hindering the normal
development of our boys into real men and increased their risk to become sexual
perverts. He mentioned that the increase of the Bahamian dominant females in the
single-parent family was problematic. In his own word:
"This is the reason for the careful cultivation of the "stud
image"; because of his (the male) early submission to female dominance,
the male feels compelled to establish his authority over woman in the most
direct, elementary and instinctual way he knows: sex. His real satisfaction
does not lie in the sexual act itself. The kick he gets out of promiscuity is
that to him it represents a continual confirmation of his manhood; i.e., his
dominance over woman, and the extra pleasure he finds is boasting about his
sexual conquests to his male cronies further reaffirms his own image of self
as he-man, as "one hell of a guy" and at the same time gives him the
emotional satisfaction he only finds in all-male company and in all-male
relationships"
Dr. McCartney expounds further on how the Bahamian male became corrupted:
"Thus, stripped of the false aura of "he-manism" and the
irresistible virility, the Bahamian male presents as a deeply insecure
individual, the product of a tragically inadequate family structure that
denies him a healthy psychosexual development and drives him to constant
reaffirmation of his sexual identity by engaging in indiscriminate and –I am
firmly convinced–really rather joyless sex."
Isn’t it evident that male corruption is not the result of
neuro-endocrinological differentiation but that of socialization? Isn’t it
also evident that male leadership crisis is an outgrowth of a corrupt society
where men have not learned how to be co-transformational leaders with their
wives in their homes? I call on all men to reevaluate their philosophy of life,
their passion for doing, and their reason for leading. If you do have the
talent to lead in the community (not all men do), lead with a teachable spirit,
a sensitive heart, and a compassionate mind. In the home, open your heart to the
wisdom found in your female companion. Learn how to collaborate and cooperate
with her. Testosterone is not to blame, WE
ARE. Your response
barringtonbrennen@gmail.com
