Bullying: Why We Do It and How To Really Fix the Problem

Bullying has always been a topic that interests me. As a kid, I spent a few years being a bully, then a few more years being bullied. As a high school teacher, I witnessed countless incidents of bullying. As a person with a psychology background and a deep fascination of human behavior, I've always been curious about the exact motivations behind the behaviors.

Aside from my own personal interest, bullying exacts a huge social cost in human life. Approximately every 30 minutes, another person commits suicide due to being bullied. That alone should motivate us to take this problem seriously. Hopefully this post will serve as a spark to ignite a wider debate on bullying and maybe, just maybe, lead us to a future where so many people aren't dying.

A few months ago, I asked my Facebook friends why they thought bullies, well, bully. Their responses were about what I expected, and mostly attributed bully to either negative personality characteristics, insecurities and/or an inferiority complex, fear, hatred, unhappiness, mental disorders, emotional immaturity, or they're just perpetuating a bullying cycle (they were bullied, thus they become bullies.)

While I don't discount any of these explanations, none of them really seem to adequately explain the actual bully dynamics. That shouldn't come as a surprise, because science doesn't really understand bullying behavior. Or at least the published research seems to be missing the actual underlying causes of bullying. All of these explanations are based on logical or emotional inferences, not actual empirical data. When we DO look at the empirical data, we realize we, as a society, have no clue about bullying. 

Evidence: This study that shows anti-bullying programs actually INCREASE bullying. The authors hypothesize these programs don't stop bullying; they teach bullies to get better at not getting caught. It's the equivalent of showing bank robbers the blueprints for the bank's security systems. 

For some of you who may be familiar with anti-bullying programs, you're probably thinking "But wait! I know of programs that work! My school (or my kid's school or whatever) implemented it and it really works!"

Maybe, but odds are good it's a lot like Finland's "successful" program. This program effectively teaches bystanders to overcome the bystander effect and intervene on behalf of the victim. That's actually really effective... at eliminating bully behavior in school-related situations and pushing it to other off-site situations.

It's sort of like how we treat the homeless in California. They're a nuisance, so municipalities enact programs to force them to move to a neighboring municipality, then those municipalities do the same. It does nothing to solve the problem, it just pushes it around. But it makes people feel good that they "fixed" homelessness because they no longer see them begging on the street corner. Likewise, schools can feel good because they "solved" the bullying program by pushing the problem elsewhere.

I call bullshit. If I'm going to address a problem, I want to actually FIX it. If I'm in a sinking boat, I don't want to devise a better method of shoveling water out of the boat. I want to find the damn holes and plug them. That's the goal with bullying.

My Hypothesis

Currently, there are a slew of evolutionary psychologists that believe bullying behavior occurs as a function of... big surprise, evolution. They contend bullying behavior is really a social domination issue. In our evolutionary past, bullies would get more resources like food and shelter. Those who were the best at bullying would have access to the greatest quantity of resources, thus most likely to survive long enough to pass their genes to the next generation. As a result, bullying behavior is "hard-wired" into our genes. In the modern world where we really don't have to fight over resources, kids who grow up in a chaotic home environment may not learn the social skills to inhibit this "natural" tendency, so they engage in bullying behavior. 

That's problematic on several levels. Bullying occurs regardless of the stability of the home environment and is better predicted by the perceived safety of the environment. For example, bullying behaviors are positively correlated with violence. The more dangerous the environment, the more bullying we see. Interestingly, that only pertains to males (that's a big hint.) Furthermore, males tend to bully other males they don't know very well but also aren’t complete strangers (another hint.)

What about female bullying? This offers a tantalizing clue, too. Females engage in far different bullying behaviors than men. Men are direct. They physically and verbally bully each other face-to-face. Women? Not so much. They engage in relational bullying, or, as we like to say, they're catty bitches. They corrupt the relationships of their victims by spreading rumors, leaking secrets, back-stabbing, and using "excluding" behaviors. More significantly, bullying behavior increases as a function of social standing. The popular girls are most likely to bully. Weirdly (to me anyway), this fundamental difference in bullying methodology between the genders is often written off as a minor detail when it should be considered a major hint regarding the real cause of bullying.

So what is the real cause of bullying?

Gender roles and sexual selection. 

Ever watch later elementary and middle school-aged children flirt with each other? It's rough. They have the basics down, but the behaviors are WAYYYY over-exaggerated. They just haven't fine-tuned the skill set, and they'll slowly improve throughout high school and into college, with some never really improving on their early fumbling attempts. This flirting behavior serves a useful evolutionary purpose; it's the mechanism we use to attract and secure a mate and eventually pass our genes on to the next generation. All of us come from a long line of countless ancestors who successfully flirted… at least once. 

Bullying plays by that same rule. Bullying in children is rough around the edges. It never really stops over the course of our lifetime (yes, there are retirement community bullies.) And, like flirting, bullying serves an evolutionary purpose. Bullying differs in that males and females engage in bullying for very different reasons. 

Intermission: If you haven't read it, take a look at my Gender Role Protection Theory and the accompanying "why homophobia exists" post. They'll be referenced in the "male bullying" discussion. Also take a look at the Women, Explained article. It'll help explain female bullying.

Why Men Bully

When men bully, they're testing each other to test their ability to "protect the perimeter." In evolutionary terms, men, due to our larger physical size and greater upper body strength, are tasked with protecting the tribe. Part of that task relies on interdependent cooperation. Guys need to know the other guys protecting the perimeter with them are capable of protecting their back, both literally and figuratively. This is why men bully men they don't know well. This is also why standing up to male bullies is the only effective way to stop bullying. This is also why "telling the teacher" or "bystander intervention" just causes the bully to modify their bullying behaviors. This is also why men bully effeminate males (gay males, transgender folks, etc.) so often (read the homophobia post if you skipped it.) 

As I mentioned, if the victim fights back, even unsuccessfully, the bullying immediately stops. If they do not fight back, the bullying continues until they do. Sadly, our society has fallen into a trap of being rather militant on teaching boys NOT to fight back. That results in continual bullying until the victim simply snaps (hello, school shooters!) 

We can solve that problem by simply teaching boys to stand up to bullies. 

That’s it. That’s all we have to do. 

Before we move to women, there's one other interesting angle to this. I've had a hard time finding primary sources (unfortunately I was a history major in addition to psych), but there have been some cultures in human history that had a special rule of sorts for biological/genetic men that did not want to "protect the perimeter." They basically got a free pass to opt out of this male fitness testing. Instead of protecting the perimeter, they would do other tasks within the tribe/community. In other words, they weren't bullied because there was no reason to bully them. I have no idea how we could implement this in our modern American society, but it would be a great solution to those men that do not want to conform to the masculine gender role. In essence, if we can find that solution, we end homophobia.

Why Women Bully

This is a much more difficult problem to solve. Women essentially bully to maintain their status as the highest-valued females. Their motive is simple - the highest value females get access to the highest value males. Female bullying disqualifies other potential rival females for access to males. They begin these behaviors before they actually hit puberty for the same reason they start rudimentary flirting behaviors before puberty... complex social skills are hard to learn. 

These behaviors are fairly predictable, and include several behaviors that many feminists somehow manage to blame on men (or the "Patriarchy.) A few examples include:

• Slut-shaming
• Fat-shaming
• Style-shaming ("You're wearing THAT dress?")
• Public humiliation
• Excluding women from social circles or not inviting women to events
• Back-handed compliments
• The aforementioned leaking of secrets and spreading rumors

Honestly, I have no idea how to fix this problem because, at the most basic level, female bullying is one of the engines of evolution. It assures the best genes from the human gene pool are matched up, thus assuring our survival as a species. Short-circuiting that mechanism would doom us genetically. If we were Hell-bent on making it happen, we'd basically have to resort to radical social engineering where women would be forced to reproduce with completely random men. I have a hard time believing anyone (me included) would support that idea. 

A victim of female bullying could feasibly take the male approach and stand up to the bullies, but they'd probably have to resort to a scary level of violence to make the bullying stop. Unlike male bullying, female bullying isn't a test. It's the real deal. The females doing the bullying have no incentive to back down until the victim is effectively disqualified from attaining the high value males. To make it worse, female bullying occurs in packs against individuals, so the lone victim would essentially have to kick the asses of an entire group.

There may be some value in education, though. If a female victim of bullying understands exactly why she is being bullied, maybe she wouldn't take it as personally. That subtle shift in understanding might make the difference between her contemplating suicide and having the strength to persevere. Even if it saved a single life, it would be worthwhile.

 

Tribes deserve special attention here, though. In a tribal social organizational model, bullying between females can be greatly reduced or even eliminated if the higher ranking females in the Tribe militantly police bullying behaviors among the lower ranking females. A small coalition of the most powerful, influential females can effectively set the tone for the rest of the females in the Tribe, and focus that "catty bitchedness" to females outside the tribe.

Conclusion

Bullying is a serious behavior that harms countless people. Hell, it KILLS a lot of people. As a society, our previous and current attempts to curtail the behaviors have been fruitless. The best we can do now is suppress bullying in a specific environment. To me, that's completely unacceptable because bullying is still occurring. Is my hypothesis correct? Maybe. Maybe not. But what the Hell do we have to lose?

This post is kind of important. Even if you disagree, we need to start thinking outside the box on this issue. Please share this post far and wide. If you're a parent, grandparent, aunt, or uncle, this issue probably affects the kids you love. If you're a teacher or any other professional that works with children, this issue affects the children you care for so dearly. Hopefully it'll start a new, better dialogue. Post it on Facebook, Twitter, and even Google+. Email it to your coworkers and family members, or print it out and post it in the break room or on the fridge at home. If we spread the word, together we might be able to save some lives.

Reframing Gender: Masculinity and Femininity as a Personality Construct and the Gender Cup Model

In the In the years since I began writing and gender, sex, and relationships, my hypothesis on the true nature of gender has evolved. Originally, I explained "gender" as a spectrum with masculinity at one end and femininity at the other. Any given person, regardless of their biological (do they have a penis and testes, a vagina and ovaries, or any of the variations and combinations that can occur) or genetic sex (XX, XY, or any other variation that can occur), fell somewhere on the spectrum. It looks something like this:

I had liked this idea because it allowed for the wide variety of gender expression we see occurring throughout our populations. The problem, though, is the construct didn't allow for the combinations of masculinity and femininity we see. 

For example, it would be entirely possible for a biological and genetic male to exhibit very strong masculine traits, yet also exhibit very strong feminine traits situationally. Based off my hypothesis I explained in this post on my other man camp blog, this kind of man would commonly be called a "gentleman" and would be considered exceptionally high value to potential mates. In the realm of gender research, this man who displays both masculine and feminine traits would be considered "androgynous."

This man, however, can't really be described with the "spectrum" model above. If he's placed somewhere in the middle, we couldn't discern him from an "undifferentiated" person who exhibits few masculine OR feminine traits, which according to the hypothesis, would be low value to potential mates.

So I needed a new representation of my model, and this new model had to account for a few... issues. Including:

• The model has to represent combinations of masculinity and femininity as discrete constructs. This would alleviate the problem of the spectrum graphic representation above. 
• The model has to represent gender expression independent of biological and genetic sex. A major problem with the concept of "gender" is it's often conflated with sex. Part of this is simply an issue with the colloquial use of the the terms. In popular culture, we use sex and gender interchangeably. Our new model has to account for the fact that sex and gender, while often occurring together in most of the population, is not a perfect correlation. Most genetic and biological males are mostly masculine, but there are obvious exceptions.
• The model has to account for variability within the same individual over time and between different circumstances. A biological and genetic male may be masculine as fuck in one scenario (like confronting an aggressive homeless person), but may display strong feminine characteristics at other times (like when caring for a sick child.) 

Taking these into consideration, I developed a better model. Note this isn't actually MY original idea; the inclusion of masculine and feminine gender traits have been studied by personality psychologists for over a hundred years. My model is unique in that it's tailored to be used as a foundation for the rest of the ideas and concepts that make up the "man camp" world view.

Gender as a Personality Construct

My new model is quite simple. We have the two gender constructs: Masculinity and Femininity. Our personalities are made up of these two traits; all of us will possess SOME masculine and SOME feminine traits. The degree to which each of us possess masculine and feminine traits can be measured with a test such as this one designed off the work of Sandra Bem, or if you really want to dig into the nuances of your gender expression, take this test. Either one will give you a ballpark representation of the combination of masculine and feminine traits you possess. 

Your particular measure of masculinity and femininity will be represented with two cups:

As the measure of masculinity and femininity increases, the cups get progressively more full. Each of us will have a particular level in each cup that represents our distribution of masculine and feminine traits. 

One of the cups will be more dominant and more outwardly obvious more often. This is our primary gender. The other one will be our secondary gender. A strongly masculine man will behave in a masculine way most of the time, but may exhibit feminine characteristics in specific situations. Masculinity would be his primary gender; femininity would be his secondary gender. 

Likewise, a strongly feminine woman will behave in a feminine way most of the time, but may exhibit masculine characteristics in specific situations. Femininity would be her primary gender; masculinity would be her secondary gender. Here are my cups:

As you can see, I skew HEAVILY towards the masculine. Interestingly, back in my "Nice Guy" days, I would have scored FAR higher on the femininity cup and FAR lower on the masculinity cup. Not because I was a fundamentally different person, but rather because I thought that "Nice Guy" persona would get me what I desperately wanted - female attention. The cups above represent my authentic self. I'm pretty good at the feminine traits represented in the cups above because they're fundamentally part of who I am. But the feminine traits that I "faked" as part of my "Nice Guy" persona? Not so much. 

Anyway...

I'd expect the majority of the population to follow this particular pattern. HOWEVER, it's entirely possible for other combinations to exist. A biological and genetic male could express feminine characteristics as his primary gender. And vice versa. Or a genetic or biological male or female could have equal parts masculinity and femininity. AND those characteristics could be balanced in such a way that they're equally dominant (both "primary".) And so on.

The way to think of "gender", therefore, is that it exists independently of biological sex, genetic sex, sexual orientation, or any other such construct. 

Make sense?

The model itself isn't new or revolutionary; it merely gives us a useful framework to talk about the role of gender on how we perceive ourselves and the world around us, and helps explain, predict, and alter how we relate to other people. Especially in relationships. 

How We Can Use This Model

I make a lot of observations, give a lot of explanations, and make a lot of predictions across this blog and my other sex and relationship blogs. Pretty much all of these observations, explanations, and predictions can be explained using the Two Cup Gender Model. Here's a sampling:

• Gender expression is biological in nature and difficult to change without profound consequences. The idea that gender is hard-wired is one of the enduring, fundamental aspects of my hypothesis, which I detail in this post. However our cups are filled is largely innate and difficult to change. We can ACT in a way that violates our biological imperative, but that violation will come with significant struggles. It's essentially the same as if a gay man tries to be "straight." Possible, but extremely distressing personally. This deviates from the popular notion that gender is a social construct, which has virtually no scientific support. 
• All of us have an authentic "default" ideal combination of masculine and feminine traits. This is tied to the previous point. Each of us has a default combination of masculinity and femininity that feels authentic. When we're acting in that way, we're most likely to reach our full potential. 
• Masculinity and femininity are complimentary in nature. Great things happen when masculine and feminine people work together towards a common goal. Masculinity or femininity alone are both woefully inadequate at accomplishing greatness. Masculinity and femininity also falls flat if the constructs are competitive in nature. 
• Masculinity and femininity can both create and ease tension, which creates the foundation of the push/pull dynamic of flirting and seduction. When masculinity and femininity interact, there's an inherent tension based off the stark contrast between the two. This contrast is the fuel that supplies the fire of passion. This applies to relationships or, really, any situation. Bringing masculine and feminine individuals together makes life more interesting. 
• Relationship health increases as a function of the the disparity between masculinity and femininity in each partner. As I mention in the last point, the tension between masculinity and femininity fuels passion. The greater the discrepancy between the two, the more passion can build. The more passion builds, the more subjective enjoyment we get from relationships, the longer and more satisfying we'd expect the relationships to be.
• Most men are aroused by strongly feminine women; most women are aroused by strong masculine men. This is in no way a given, but generally speaking, this holds true. This is the reason a great deal of the man camp teachings involve learning to get better at being a man.
• Relationships are most successful when both partners score high on both masculine and feminine traits. The more of each trait a single individual possesses, the more capable they are at navigating life, empathizing with others (including their partner), and more dynamic and interesting their personalities become. A masculine male with strong feminine capabilities paired with a feminine female with strong masculine capabilities will create the best, most successful relationships. Basically, two androgynous partners are the pinnacle of relationship potential. 
• Relationships are least successful when both partners score low on both masculine and feminine traits. Basically the opposite of the last one. Two undifferentiated partners are going to have the least-successful relationships.
• Children thrive when they're exposed to both masculine and feminine influences. Role models are important for children. Having a strong masculine and a strong feminine role model will expose them to the full range of gender expression, which will help them learn the nuances of both. It's important to note the biological or genetic sex of the parents don't seem to matter. A gay couple with one masculine and one feminine partner has the same basic outcomes as a straight couple with the same gender expression variability. 
• The most successful tribes have roughly equal numbers of masculine and feminine members. If you follow this blog, you know tribalism is a major focus of my hypothesis. Generally, the more diverse the tribe, the more successful it will be... mostly because diversity gives the tribe a wider range of capabilities to solve interesting problems that arise within and outside the tribe. Gender is a MAJOR part of this. A tribe of mostly masculine members or mostly feminine members is not going to be nearly as successful as a tribe with equal numbers of each. 

These are just a few of the practical applications of the Gender Cup Model. Moving forward, this'll likely be the model I use for future posts. 

***

Using Human Behavior to Predict the Coronavirus Pandemic Outcomes: Relax, This Ain't Gonna Be Too Horrible

[edit - it's Friday night, about 12 hours after publishing this post. Take my numbers predictions at the end with a grain of salt. My numbers are based off people's reactions as outbreaks occur, and each of the outbreaks that have occurred so far seem to still be developing. My estimates are probably at least a little bit optimistic.]

While the coronavirus is a humanitarian and financial disaster, it’s also an absolutely fascinating social psychology experiment. Way back when I was deciding what I wanted to do when I grew up, I wanted to be an experimental psychologist… focused on social psychology in general and sex and gender in particular. 

That didn’t pan out because I ended up falling in love with teaching, but that researcher bug never left. So I tend to look at anything and everything through the lens of a social psychology researcher, including the COVID-19 pandemic. As it turns out, this just might be a halfway decent method of predicting where this pandemic is heading.

The underlying idea is simple - if you can understand how people, as individuals, respond to the coronavirus, you can reasonably predict all kinds of things about the virus and its effects on society. While there’s incredible variability in individual responses, they all kind of work out to an “average response.” For example, for every “I’ve been holed up in my bunker since January eating potted meat” prepper, we have a Gen Z kid licking toilets for Tik Tok affirmations. This “average person” has an “average response”, and that average response can be used to predict all kinds of useful things, especially as we learn more about the nature of the virus. 

The “Average Response”

The average person’s average response goes through about six steps and the approximate amount of anxiety each step causes on a scale of 1 (totally calm) to 7 (scared shitless):

Step One: “This is something that does not affect me, and will not affect me.” This is how almost all of us were prior to the virus arriving in the United States. If we were aware of it, we were likely to joke about it. Anxiety level: 1.

Step Two: “This is something that does not affect me, but it does affect people like me.” At this point, we still rationalize away any growing fear because the virus is still far away from affecting our lives. Specific to the coronavirus, this was the point where the CDC was still able to track WHERE affected people acquired the virus. This likely happened when the virus hit the US for the first time. Anxiety level: 2.

Step Three: “This is something that could affect me.” Once the virus spread throughout the US via "community spread", it became more apparent it would eventually pop up everywhere. At this step, the virus hasn't popped up locally, but the average person recognizes that's inevitable. But the individual hasn't had an emotional reaction to the virus yet. This is also the point where people start washing their hands a little more often and altering their social behaviors to physically distance themselves from others. Anxiety level: 3.

Step Four: “This is something that is going to affect me vicariously by disrupting my life or threatening those I love.” This is when shit starts to get real, and usually happens when a case pops up locally and begins to spread a bit. This is when people start experiencing an involuntary emotional response, which causes a significant shift in behavior. At this point regardless of what their leaders tell them, people start getting a bit fanatical about social distancing. Anxiety level: 4.

Step Five: “This is something that could kill me.” This happens when the number of positive cases starts to explode (like we see happening in New Orleans today (3/27/2020.) Even though the odds are exceptionally low (even in hard-hit Italy, only about .00014, or 136 out of every million people died from the virus), it's still an novel invisible threat we can't cure or stop, which is always terrifying. This is an emotional response usually manifested as serious fear; it cannot usually be diffused through logic or reason. At this point, people will self-isolate for a longer-than-rational amount of time. We see this in New York City and Spain right now, and saw it in Italy and Washington State last week. Anxiety level: 6-7.

Step Six: “I survived, therefore this is no longer scary.” After the virus peaks and recedes, people very slowly return to normal. Anxiety levels slowly drop as people return to their normal routine. This will take time, maybe two months or more. During this time, people will continue A LOT of the same social distancing habits (which is going to kill our jiu jitsu industry long after the virus is no longer areal threat.) We'll see flare-ups of the virus here and there, but we won't have this level of panic because we survived it once already. We'll continue to have SOME anxiety, which will probably last until we find a reliable cure OR we find a vaccine. Anxiety level: 2.

This means the degree of social distancing any given area is experiencing is a very rough approximation of which areas are in which stage. Again, this is based on the average person's response. Some people will have a stronger response, some weaker. This cool tool based on social distancing cell phone data is helpful to see where your area falls. This tool can also be used to predict which areas will be harder hit (high population density + low levels of social distancing + large elderly population = increased likelihood of major outbreak.)

So Why Does This Matter?

There's a great deal of debate on HOW governments should respond. Based on what we've seen in China, Taiwan, and South Korea versus what we've seen in Italy, Spain, and now the UK and US, it's safe to say the degree of infection and death occurs as a function of social distancing. In short, the more draconian the lock-down, the more effective it is.

But there are real costs to lockdowns, especially economically. And here in the US, we really don't like being told what to do, even if it's for our own good. As such, it doesn't really matter what the government tells us to do. Our willingness to self-isolate is what really matters, and that decision is based on the steps I outlined above.

This is both great news and terrible news. First the bad.

This means it doesn't really matter what governments tell us. We're literally just like a small child touching the hot stove. We need to personally experience getting to Step Four and Five ourselves. If the virus isn't affecting our local geographic region, we're going to take a flippant approach to social distancing. Given the virus spreads before positive cases are detected (because people seem to be pretty contagious before they become symptomatic), the virus spreads anywhere and everywhere, which means pretty much everywhere will experience that exponential outbreak eventually.

Now the good.

This also means that it doesn't really matter what government tells us. If governments underestimate the threat (or tell us to go back to work prematurely), we'll once again ignore that and default to our own survival instincts based on the Steps above. We're going to avoid engaging with others as long as we perceive a threat, and our perception of threat won't ebb until the threat actually disappears.

This means we're not going to see the apocalyptic numbers some people are bandying about. We're not going to see a million dead Americans. This also means we're not going to be locked down until the end of summer as others have predicted. It doesn't matter what our government does the the federal, state, or local level; our own self-preservation will guarantee both.

So What Can We Expect?

Here's my bold prediction based off my amateurish attempt to analyze numbers based off the Steps listed above - this will get worse before it gets better. The number of Americans that will end up dying will be around 11,000 to maybe 14,000, the number of cases and deaths will peak around April 10th or 12th, we'll see an exponential outbreak pretty much everywhere, we'll avoid a national-level shut-down, and we'll start resuming a semi-normal life around May 1st. It's important to note this estimate is highly-dependent on our government in general and president in particular not messing things up by making really bad decisions.

In addition to deaths, we'll have normal levels of toilet paper on store shelves by the second week of May. Schools and universities won't re-open until autumn. If we don't find an effective treatment, we'll experience occasional outbreaks that'll shit areas down for a week or three. Our economy will rebound by the middle of the fourth quarter, but won't be enough to save Trump's re-election. He'll lose, but not by much.

A HUGE change - once we develop a test to determine if we've already been infected thus have immunity (which hasn't been determined at the time of writing), we'll self-segregate between the affected and the non-affected. And the affected, given they can continue their lives without interruption, will gain a bit of a competitive advantage over their non-affected peers, which will temporarily set up a two-tiered society. That will bring about "coronavirus infection parties" and calls of inequality from various segments of the population. It's going to be annoying, but it'll work itself out eventually.

This will probably change how we date, too:

We won't return to some semblance of our pre-coronavirus lives until maybe January or February of 2021. This fear of pandemics will be our "Great Depression" in that it will forever change all of our behaviors. Specifically, we'll have internalized social distancing, which will have some negative impacts on intimate relationships for a long, long time. Less hugging and cuddling = less oxytocin = more divorces.

We'll also see a fair number of divorces and break-ups caused by two things - too much closeness during isolation (because a lot of people really do not like their spouses for this reason), and because a lot of women will realize their men aren't up for the challenge of protecting and providing for them. That fear of testosterone is fine in times of prosperity, but when the shit hits the fan, men need to act like men or pay the steep price of social rejection. Basically, this whole pandemic thing is a big test for men. Some passed brilliantly. Some failed miserably.

Unfortunately, those men could have made a HUGE difference had they followed this advice. Or even just understood female psychology. This will also result in a resurgence in interest in traditional gender roles, self-defense, and survivalism, firearms training, and tribalism, all of which will be a boon for me. Unfortunately, that internalized social distancing thing will make the jiu jitsu industry contract significantly as new people will be EXTREMELY hesitant to step on the mats and roll around with strangers.

Some movements, like globalism, fanatical gun control, feminism (which needed to die for these reasons), social justice, and hatred towards law enforcement will weaken significantly because this pandemic scared the shit out of a lot of people who had previously taken our safe, comfy lifestyle for granted. However, this WILL spark a resurgence in support for social safety nets and universal healthcare.

This will also spark a movement away from our harsh sociopolitical divides as a large number of Americans will have been sicked by both the Democrats and Republicans and their handling of this pandemic. We'll see an increase in bipartisanship and an increase in people registering as independents.

There ya go. As of today, that's where I predict this weird-ass thing will head in the near and distant future.

But make no mistake, though, the worst is yet to come. This will get worse before it gets better, and the "worst" will come in local and regional waves. Some local healthcare systems will be pushed to the brink, and some even past that brink. But our social distancing efforts so far WILL have made a difference in this pandemic being bad versus a catastrophe. So keep observing social distancing. We'll know when the worst is behind us.

Be safe, folks. And take care of each other. And thank healthcare workers. They're the unsung heroes in this pandemic.

~Jason

Married Dudes: Improve Yourself to Improve Your Marriage

One of the major goals of the the Man Camp project is to help guys get better at navigating relationships. For single guys, this is pretty straight-forward. For guys in relationships, it gets a little tricky. If you've already established yourself as a weak, passive, ineffective man, you can't just flick the "masculinity" switch and expect her to happily go along. Suddenly becoming more dominant and assertive and demanding respect, without the appropriate priming, will likely make bad relationships worse.

The key - you have to establish the more subtle aspects of being a man before you bust out the more overt behaviors. You have to earn her respect first. I call this stage the "priming" stage. To do that, follow these simple steps:

Step One: Get off your lazy ass and get in shape. Odds are good you're kinda fat. Get naked. Look in a full-length mirror. If you were a women, would you want to have sex with a guy who looks like you? If not, get to work. Start lifting, eat less (and cut out the junk food), and add in a sprinkling of cardio. 

Step Two: Dress better. This is tied to getting fit. The better you look, the more positively people respond to you. The better people respond to you, the more confidence you develop. It creates a really effective feedback loop.

Step Three: Learn to rein in your negative emotions. If you lose your temper, whine, cry, complain, mope, or any other such behavior, you're doing it wrong. Unless something truly tragic happens, save those emotions for your male-only groups. Masculine men learn to control their emotions instead of letting their emotions control them. To do this, study stoicism or meditation. For mediation, I highly recommend Dan Harris' book.

Step Four: Protect her. Make her feel safe and secure. The more anxiety a woman feels, the less she's going to enjoy life. Learn to fight (naturally, I recommend doing this at our gym.) Also take a defensive firearms class. 

Step Five: Gain the respect of those around you. How your extended family, friends, coworkers, and other acquaintances view you matters. If they do not respect you, your wife cannot respect you. Earn their respect.

Step Six: Increase your income. If you're unemployed or under-employed, correct that as soon as possible. Being a provider is one side of the hypergamy coin and plays an important role in the attraction she feels for you.

This stage often takes a significant amount of time depending on how many of these traits you possessed before the relationship or in the early stages of the relationship. In most cases, it might take a few months up to a year to get to the point where you're ready to move on to the point of asserting yourself as the leader of the relationship. When you can pass the "Masculine Test" I describe my post on hacking female ovulation, you're probably ready.

The Big Picture: Who We Are and What We Do

The ***Really*** Big Picture

We’re  a results-oriented community of men dedicated to making our lives more adventurous, fulfilling, and passionate. We do this by sharing expertise, discuss issues we’re facing, give each other advice, provide support, give feedback, set goals, and hold each other accountable. Our purpose is to help each other live the kind of life that makes us excited to get out of bed in the morning.

We encourage and motivate each other to take the basic steps of improving our lives. This includes weightlifting, eating healthier, improving relationships learning to defend ourselves and those we love, building confidence, improving our finances, setting goals, and so on. 

Why This Group?

Our safe, prosperous modern civilization comes at a serious cost to masculinity. Because we face no serious dangers, no major wars, no devastating famines, no economic collapses, society has no need for large bands of men to protect and serve. This relative safety forces us to abandon the freedom to be the kind of men we know we can be. 

Screw that. 

As men, we have a deeply-ingrained desire to organize in bands bonded by brotherhood, engage in rites of passage to have our masculinity tested, and to prove ourselves among other respected men. We’re creating a roadmap to a more authentic world within our modern world where men can enjoy the trappings of modernity AND the freedom, respect, and responsibilities enjoyed by our fathers, grandfathers, and countless generations who came before. 

We do this through one simple process - we continuously work at getting better at being men. More specifically, we're studying the art and science of masculinity, then applying the lessons to our personal and professional lives in the form of relentless, focused self-improvement. This self-improvement process is the primary goal of this group. 

The Details and the Underlying Philosophy

“I mean to make myself a man, and if I succeed in that, I shall succeed in everything else.”

Those words, spoken by the twentieth US president James Garfield, aptly sum up what it means to be a man. Wise words, indeed, but what is a man? The first goal of this group is to learn what it means to be a man, then embark on the long, sometimes difficult journey of becoming the best men we can become.

“Civilization comes at a cost of manliness. It comes at a cost of wildness, of risk, of strife. It comes at a cost of strength, of courage, of mastery. It comes at a cost of honor. Increased civilization exacts a toll of virility, forcing manliness into further redoubts of vicariousness and abstraction.”

The second goal of this group, as illustrated by this Jack Donovan quote, is to carve out a niche in our modern, civilized world where men are free of societal restraints to pursue the trials and tribulations that allow men to test themselves in the presence of other men.

If this sounds like something you’d be interested in, join us! Drop me a line at eldiablobjj “at” gmail.com.