A simple internet search utilizing the words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals a number of courses that are offered for approximately $250-$500 dollars a day. Add this towards the air fare, meals and lodging and you have easily spent thousands of dollars to attend this particular training. The websites that provide 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!
When you click through the tabs you see each of the services that are offered: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all, and numerous courses that are offered; from Handgun Training to High-risk Environments. And, if you register for a training course now, you get a 10% discount on your next outrageously priced course! With many of these great pictures and all these services that are offered, they have to be legitimate and professional, right? Buyer, beware! Most of these websites are more just like the Wizard of Oz than the Fantastic Four; because what lies behind the curtain is usually a big disappointment. Nevertheless, you wouldn’t realize that from studying the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots of this word have to do with masculinity being preferable over femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in the United 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 many people have of your tacticalsupportservice.com. Actually, many of these types of personalities are attracted to the profession. There are many reasons at the same time.
Author Bron B. Ingoldsby presented a paper in the Annual Meeting in the National Council on Family Relations in 1985 entitled; A Theory for the creation of Machismo. The abstract reads the following: “With variations in se-x role expectations in marriage, family researchers have begun to examine the very idea of machismo. Two characteristics dominant in study regarding machismo are aggressiveness and hyper-se-xuality. A biological style of machismo asserts that males everywhere tend to be aggressive than females, a se-x difference which appears to experience a genetic base. An advanced theory of sociobiology offers another explanation for macho behavior. Based on this theory, much of animal, and maybe human, behavior is affected by the drive for one’s genes to reproduce themselves. A generally accepted psychological theory views machismo being an expression of the inferiority complex. Most research on machismo is restricted towards the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and the us suggests that lower class males are afflicted by job insecurity and make up for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and also by subordinating women. Other studies point out distant father-son relationships as you factor ultimately causing feelings of inferiority and also to the growth of machismo. Women may support machismo by being submissive, dependent, and passive. The mix of feeling inferior and acting superior is machismo, a trait that may be repeated generation after generation. If men may be socialized toward male parental investment, the incidence of machismo may decline along with the incidences of men feeling self-esteem and females feeling equal to men may rise”.
With this pool of individuals, we would expect to see women and men enlisting in professions like Executive Protection as they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate by entering a risky profession, which actually enables them to feel superior. I can affirmatively assert this is true. The majority of my business is training, and that i have probably trained several thousand students at this time inside my career. Among the courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a small percentage, I have met my share of overcompensating students trying to handle some psychological inadequacy. Does the term, “wannabe” sound familiar?
Exactly why do Girls and boys Prefer Different Toys, is undoubtedly an article published in Psychology Today. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at LSE is credited. An excerpt using this article: “Throughout the world, boys and girls prefer to have fun with different types of toys. Boys typically like to play with cars and trucks, while girls typically decide to play with dolls. How come this? A traditional sociological explanation is the fact girls and boys are socialized and inspired to enjoy different types of toys by their parents, peers, as well as the “society.” Growing scientific evidence suggests, however, that boys’ and girls’ toy preferences may 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. Inside 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 along with a cooking pot), as well as 2 neutral toys (a picture book and a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. They then assessed the monkeys’ preference for every toy by measuring the time they spent with each. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater interest in the masculine toys, and also the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater interest in the feminine toys. The 2 s-exes failed to differ within their preference for your neutral toys.
Inside 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 individuals another primate species (rhesus monkeys). Their study demonstrates that, when given a decision between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (say for example a wagon, a truck, and a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (such as Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Ann, plus a koala bear hand puppet), male rhesus monkeys show strong and significant preference to the masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for the feminine toys, but the difference in their preference will not be statistically significant”.
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is Clinical Director at the national children’s crisis charity KidsPeace and also the author of Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters. He wrote a write-up published in Psychology Today; The Career Aspiration of Shooters. From that article: “The pattern of thwarted careers in law enforcement and/or the military is available among serial killers and school shooters, along with one or more spree killer. What significance could there be for this pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ fascination with the military could have been their make an attempt to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into an acceptable outlet. Their www.tacticalsupportservice.com may also have been motivated with what Dr. Katherine Newman calls “the failure of manhood.” For young tact1cal who had fragile identities, joining the military seemed to be seen as a method of establishing masculine identities for themselves. Their failures to make this happen goal could have had a devastating affect on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an attempt to show the world exactly how capable these were of using weapons. They may took their rejections and failures like a personal assault on their own masculinity, and consequently felt driven to show to the world that they were powerful men indeed”.