A brief google search using the words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals numerous courses that exist for roughly $250-$500 dollars every day. Add this to the air fare, meals and lodging and you will have easily spent thousands of dollars to visit this kind of training. The websites offering this training look slick, with professional rotating pictures of limousines, private jets, yachts, limos and guys with guns. It can be testosterone heaven. But wait…..there’s more!
As you may click from the tabs you can see all the services which can be found: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all types, and a multitude of courses accessible; from Handgun Training to Dangerous Environments. And, in the event you register for a course now, you get a 10% discount in your next outrageously priced course! With all of these great pictures and all these facilities accessible, they must be legitimate and professional, right? Buyer, beware! Several of these websites are definitely more just like the Wizard of Oz in comparison to the Fantastic Four; because what lies behind the curtain is usually a big disappointment. However you wouldn’t understand that from studying the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots of the word pertain to masculinity being superior to femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in america is identified as a “strong or exaggerated experience of masculinity stressing attributes such as physical courage, viri-lity and aggressiveness; an exaggerated sense of strength or toughness”. This definition would describe the stereotypical perception many individuals have from the tactical support service. Actually, a number of these forms of personalities are interested in the profession. There are many reasons as well.
Author Bron B. Ingoldsby presented a paper on the Annual Meeting in the National Council on Family Relations in 1985 entitled; A Theory for the Development of Machismo. The abstract reads the following: “With modifications in se-x role expectations in marriage, family researchers have begun to examine the concept of machismo. Two characteristics dominant in the study of machismo are aggressiveness and hyper-se-xuality. A biological kind of machismo asserts that males everywhere are certainly more aggressive than females, a se-x difference which appears to have a genetic base. A contemporary theory of sociobiology offers another explanation for macho behavior. Based on this theory, most of animal, as well as perhaps human, behavior is relying on the drive for one’s genes to breed themselves. A generally accepted psychological theory views machismo as an expression of an inferiority complex. Most research on machismo is fixed on the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and america implies that lower class males have problems with job insecurity and make up for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and also subordinating women. Other studies denote distant father-son relationships as you factor resulting in 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 can be socialized toward male parental investment, the incidence of machismo may decline and the incidences of men feeling self-esteem and ladies feeling equivalent to men may rise”.
With this pool of men and women, we might expect to see men and women enlisting in professions like Executive Protection because they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate by entering a risky profession, which in turn helps them feel superior. I can affirmatively assert this is true. The majority of my company is training, and that i have probably trained several thousand students at this point inside my career. One of many courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a compact percentage, I have met my share of overcompensating students trying to cope with some psychological inadequacy. Does the term, “wannabe” sound familiar?
Exactly why do Boys and Girls Prefer Different Toys, is surely an article published in Psychology Today. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at LSE is credited. An excerpt from 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 elect to fiddle with dolls. The reason why this? A normal sociological explanation is boys and girls are socialized and encouraged to play with various kinds 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 a similar se-x-typical toy preferences as humans. In a incredibly ingenious study, published in Evolution and Human Behavior, Alexander and Hines gave two stereotypically masculine toys (a ball and a police car), two stereotypically feminine toys (a soft doll as well as a cooking pot), as well as 2 neutral toys (a picture book along with a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. They then assessed the monkeys’ preference for each and every toy by measuring the length of time they spent with each. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater interest in the masculine toys, as well as the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater fascination with the feminine toys. Both the s-exes did not differ in 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 individuals another primate species (rhesus monkeys). Their study demonstrates that, when given an alternative between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (for instance a wagon, a truck, as well as a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (for example Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Ann, as well as a koala bear hand puppet), male rhesus monkeys show strong and significant preference for that masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for the feminine toys, although the difference within their preference is not really statistically significant”.
Peter Langman, Ph.D., is Clinical Director with the national children’s crisis charity KidsPeace as well as the author of Why Kids Kill: In the Minds of School Shooters. He wrote a post published in Psychology Today; The Career Aspiration of Shooters. From that article: “The pattern of thwarted careers in police force and the military can be obtained among serial killers and school shooters, and also a minumum of one spree killer. What significance is there to this particular 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 a sufficient outlet. Their www.tacticalsupportservice.com strike security can also have been motivated by what Dr. Katherine Newman calls “the failure of manhood.” For young tact1cal who had fragile identities, joining the military seemed to be viewed as a means of establishing masculine identities on their own. Their failures to accomplish this goal might have experienced a devastating affect on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an effort to demonstrate the entire world exactly how capable they were of employing weapons. They could have got their rejections and failures like a personal assault on the masculinity, and therefore felt driven to show around the world they were powerful men indeed”.