Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I've wondered why women can use hormones as an excuse (PMS made me
    act like that) but at the same time hormones are not an excuse for
    things men do? For example, I believe, but can't prove, that periodic
    hormone changes can make men say/do "sexist" things. Those things are
    usually grounds for harassment changes but it just may not always be
    a man's fault. It's an interesting theory anyway.

    Note that I'm not saying that all or even most women do blame hormones
    but some do. And some have won in court. I just wonder if "a burst of
    testosterone made me grab her" would be as acceptable in court?
    Especially by women?

    		Alfred

    Re testosterone attacks: If it could be proven that excess hormones
    caused criminal behavior, I'd have no problem with excusing the
    instigator on medical grounds - BUT he'd have to undergo hormone
    therapy to make sure he didn't do it again. [Just as women who commit
    crimes under the influence of PMS or post-partum depression must. Or
    should, anyway, IMO.]
    
    So, anybody volunteering to take estrogen shots (or whatever) every
    time he wants to cop a feel?
    
    -b

    look how quickly THIS discussion has deteriorated!
    
    Just two responses
    and already we have some or all of snideness, sarcasm,derision, scorn.

    Kindly identify the alleged scorn and derision. (I plead guilty to the
    other two, but then I'm always like that.)
    
    Besides, there was substance in those replies as well as s, s, d, and
    s; please, if you have any interest in the topic, feel free to address
    the substance as well as the editorial tone.
    
    -b

    I said some or all.
    No, I will not address what you said. As soon as you made the editorial
    you lost me. You proved to me that I can't trust you.
    
    (p.s. it wouldn't surprise me if you had similar but not as strong
    reactions to .1. I didn't -quite-, but I am less naturally adversarial
    to other men. 
    
    
    			herb

    Can't trust me? I do not understand.
    
    My reaction to .1 was one of combined interest and amusement, which is
    what usually prompts me to write notes. And I rather enjoy sarcasm.
    
    A serious translation of .1 and .2 might look like this:
    
    Q: Under certain circumstances, women have been declared not guilty of
    certain crimes by reason of hormonal influence. Is it not possible that
    hormonal influence might affect men's behavior in a similar way, such
    that they, too, should be considered not guilty? And, if so, would such
    a determination be acceptable to women?
    
    A: If it could be proven that a man committed a criminal act under the
    influence of an unusual level of hormones, I would be amenable to a
    not-guilty decision, but only if that person were then to undergo
    treatment for the condition, such that it would not occur again. (I do
    have some doubt that men would be willing to plea hormonal influence in
    order to avoid punishment for minor crimes, because they might consider
    the treatment to be worse than a jail term.)
    
    But, see, it's just not as entertaining for me to read - or write -
    that way...
    
    -b

    well if it's entertainment you want ...

>    I've wondered why women can use hormones as an excuse (PMS made me
>    act like that) but at the same time hormones are not an excuse for
>    things men do? 
    
    I don't think women should be able to use hormones as an excuse for
    criminal behavior.  (My ex sometimes threw up and fainted from PMS; in
    such cases, PMS is clearly a legitimate excuse for being late to work.)
    
    I think male hormonal cycles and problems are worthy of much more
    study, and that they haven't been studied because men fear losing their
    rep for being always-in-control.  I don't think that any such studies
    would be able to justify pinching a co-worker's ass -- learned behavior
    -- although it might be able to justify more strictly organic sudden
    embarrassing unmistakeable signs of physical interest. 
    
    Ray

    -d 
    
    mine is gone

>I didn't -quite-, but I am less naturally adversarial
>    to other men. 
    
    Hah!

Part of the reason why the effects of hormonal imbalances are more obvious in 
women than in men lies with the hypothalamus.  This part of the brain is 
deeply tied into the human endrocinal system, but it functions somewhat 
differently between the sexes.

The hypothalamus in women acts as a positive feedback loop.  Thus, it 
exacerbates the hormonal cycles.  In extreme cases it can only be controlled 
by hormonal therapies.  Because the cycle is roughly monthly these swings are 
often highly visible in terms of behaviour.

In men the hypothalamus acts as a negative feedback loop, and thus tends to 
dampen hormonal ocillations.  However, testosterone equilibrium is not 
necessarily conducive to good behaviour where the level is very high, and it 
is highest in male adolescents.  After puberty the levels skyrocket and 
remain very high until the twenties.  It no accident or coincidence that male 
adolescent behaviour is frequently antisocial (defining social behaviour as 
conforming to group mores), and violent criminal frequently have high levels 
of testosterone also.

The male cycle, if it can be called such, varies over much longer periods, 
and may be annual (although the birth rate indicates that men's fancies turn 
to love not in Spring but in Winter).

Hormonal influences can be valid mitigation but they need to be treated 
differently for both sexes.

    <Hah!
    
    Your <hah!> is understandable and accuracte. What I should have said is
    
    "I didn't -quite-, but I am less naturally adversarial to other men,
    unless I view them as already hostile".
    
    "A burst of testosterone" causes my hackles to tingle a bit which is
    why I commented on it in the title of .3. In that case I left some room
    for doubt. If you had used similar words, I would have felt much more
    strongly that it was an adversarial use of sarcasm.
    
    				herb

    
    Speaking of hormones.  I've often wondered what would happen if men
    *did* loose their sex drive and start looking at women and marriage
    in a logical manner?  If you take the sex drive out of the equation,
    some of the things men do to themselves and put up with (women too
    for that matter) are really assenine.
    
    At 38 and with 4 kids, it's easier for me to say that than when I
    was 17. 8^).
    fred();

    
>    
>    Speaking of hormones.  I've often wondered what would happen if men
>    *did* loose their sex drive and start looking at women and marriage
>    in a logical manner?  If you take the sex drive out of the equation,
>    some of the things men do to themselves and put up with (women too
>    for that matter) are really assenine.
>
    
    Let me logically list things Emmy has put me through ..
    
    * She's the best friend I ever had
    * She tolerates me when I'm a jerk
    * She lets me cry on her shoulder when I need to
    * She provided me the greatest kid in the world (it's a big tie)
    * She's a GREAT mother
    * She pays more than her share
    * She shares my interests
    * She shares my politics
    * She shares my values
    * She tolerates my hobbies
    * Etc, etc, etc
    
    I hope I have a very-very long time to put up with Emmy and Gia and
    that they in turn hope to put up with me.
    
    Greg
    

.16>    Speaking of hormones.  I've often wondered what would happen if men
.16>    *did* loose their sex drive and start looking at women and marriage
.16>    in a logical manner?

From what I have read, women don't want us to *loose* our sex drive as much
as *control* it...  "Men" HAVE this control, "boys" do not.