A quick google search while using words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals a variety of courses that are available for roughly $250-$500 dollars each day. Add this to the air fare, meals and lodging and you will have easily spent thousands to go to this particular training. The websites that offer this training look slick, with professional rotating pictures of limousines, private jets, yachts, limos and guys with guns. It is testosterone heaven. But wait…..there’s more!
As you may click with the tabs the truth is each of the services that are offered: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all, and numerous courses available; from Handgun Training to High Risk Environments. And, in the event you sign up for a training course now, you receive a 10% discount on your next outrageously priced course! With all of these great pictures and all these facilities that are offered, they must be legitimate and professional, right? Buyer, beware! Most of these websites are more such as the Wizard of Oz compared to the Fantastic Four; because what lies behind the curtain is generally a big disappointment. However, you wouldn’t know that from studying the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots with this word have to do with masculinity being better than femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in the states is identified as a “strong or exaggerated sense of masculinity stressing attributes like physical courage, viri-lity and aggressiveness; an exaggerated sensation of strength or toughness”. This definition would describe the stereotypical perception lots of people have from the tactical support service. Actually, most of these varieties of personalities are interested in the profession. There are other reasons too.
Author Bron B. Ingoldsby presented a paper with the Annual Meeting from the National Council on Family Relations in 1985 entitled; A Theory for the creation of Machismo. The abstract reads as follows: “With changes in se-x role expectations in marriage, family researchers have started to examine the concept of machismo. Two characteristics dominant in the research into machismo are aggressiveness and hyper-se-xuality. A biological kind of machismo asserts that males everywhere tend to be aggressive than females, a se-x difference which appears to have a genetic base. A modern day theory of sociobiology offers another explanation for macho behavior. As outlined by this theory, a lot of animal, and maybe human, behavior is affected by the drive for one’s genes to breed themselves. A generally accepted psychological theory views machismo for an expression of the inferiority complex. Most research on machismo is fixed to the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and the us suggests that lower class males are afflicted by job insecurity and compensate for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and also by subordinating women. Other studies point to distant father-son relationships as you factor leading to feelings of inferiority and also to the introduction of machismo. Women may support machismo because they are submissive, dependent, and passive. A combination of feeling inferior and acting superior is machismo, a trait which is repeated generation after generation. If men can be socialized toward male parental investment, the incidence of machismo may decline along with the incidences of men feeling self-esteem and females feeling equivalent to men may rise”.
Using this pool of folks, we might anticipate seeing men and women enlisting in professions like Executive Protection since they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate by entering a risky profession, which often helps them feel superior. I can affirmatively assert this really is. The bulk of my business is training, and I have probably trained several thousand students at this time during my career. Among the courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a small percentage, I have got met my share of overcompensating students trying to deal with some psychological inadequacy. Does the phrase, “wannabe” sound familiar?
Why do Boys and Girls Prefer Different Toys, is undoubtedly an article published in Psychology Today. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at LSE is credited. An excerpt with this article: “All over the world, girls and boys would rather have fun with several types of toys. Boys typically like to play with cars and trucks, while girls typically opt to play with dolls. Exactly why is this? A regular sociological explanation is that boys and girls are socialized and motivated to enjoy several types of toys by their parents, peers, and the “society.” Growing scientific evidence suggests, however, that boys’ and girls’ toy preferences could have a biological origin. In 2002, Gerianne M. Alexander of Texas A&M University and Melissa Hines of City University in London stunned the scientific world by showing that vervet monkeys showed the same se-x-typical toy preferences as humans. Within an incredibly ingenious study, published in Evolution and Human Behavior, Alexander and Hines gave two stereotypically masculine toys (a ball plus a police car), two stereotypically feminine toys (a soft doll as well as a cooking pot), and 2 neutral toys (an image book and a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. They then assessed the monkeys’ preference for every toy by measuring how much time they spent with every. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater interest in the masculine toys, and the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater desire for the feminine toys. The two s-exes failed to differ inside their preference for that neutral toys.
In a forthcoming article in Hormones and Behavior, Janice M. Hassett, Erin R. Siebert, and Kim Wallen, of Emory University, replicate the s-ex preferences in toys among people in another primate species (rhesus monkeys). Their study reveals that, when given an alternative between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (say for example a wagon, a truck, and a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (for example Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Ann, and a koala bear hand puppet), male rhesus monkeys show strong and significant preference for that masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for that feminine toys, but the difference within their preference is not really statistically significant”.
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is Clinical Director in the national children’s crisis charity KidsPeace along with the author of Why Kids Kill: Within the Minds of School Shooters. He wrote articles published in Psychology Today; The Career Aspiration of Shooters. From that article: “The pattern of thwarted careers in law enforcement and the military can be found among serial killers and school shooters, along with a minumum of one spree killer. What significance can there be to this particular pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ desire for the military could have been their make an effort to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into a satisfactory outlet. Their tactical support service may also have been motivated by what Dr. Katherine Newman calls “the failure of manhood.” For young tact1cal who had fragile identities, joining the military might have been viewed as a strategy for establishing masculine identities for themselves. Their failures to do this goal could possibly have had a devastating affect on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an effort to demonstrate the world just how capable these were of utilizing weapons. They can have got their rejections and failures being a personal assault on their masculinity, and so felt driven to show around the world they were powerful men indeed”.