Category Archives: Boys

Brainwashing, Feminism and Men, Part 2

4stonewa

Part one went over the basics of brainwashing and began to look at some of the similarities that male feminists seem to share with those who were brainwashed by the Chinese.  We discussed how the parallels we were drawing were not precise and were general though striking and eye opening.  I think a similar situation can be seen when we turn to the similarities of the feminists with those who were doing the brainwashing, the communist Chinese.

We saw how the Chinese first depended on attacking the identity of the captives and added the prolonged use of guilt and shame.  This was all done within an environment where they (The Chinese) were held as infallible.  I think a good case can be made for some strong similarities existing in the way feminism has attacked men and boys.  It is a curious question why they would do so.  Let’s start there.

So why did feminism attack the identity of men?  Well, it’s pretty simple really.  Telling the truth that women suffered and faced discrimination due to rigid sex roles just wasn’t that sexy and the media and politicians would fail to be interested.  But, if you can find a bad guy, you know, someone to blame, then the ordeal becomes sexy and interests the press and those politicians knowing they need something to get re-elected. We will just blame men and claim they are the problem.  Hey, we could juice it up even more and call them oppressors!    

And that is just what they did.

They did this with the benefit of a gynocentric culture that has always jumped to attention when females claim they are tied to the tracks. If you don’t believe that just look at our laws.  Time and time again the laws protect women but less so men.  The Violence against WOMEN Act, Sexual Harassment Laws, Rape Shield laws, affirmative action, and on and on. The protecting is all for women and little for men.  Men are disposable.

It didn’t take long to find that the tactic of blaming men as oppressors was actually very effective and very lucrative.  The more they did it, the more media attention and funding they would get.  And no one complained!

Of course, the obvious truth was that women were restricted not by oppressive men but by rigid sex roles.  These roles had been the norm for many, many years and would likely still be in effect except that women became aware that their options were limited by their sex roles and they wanted more options in their lives.  

But didn’t women have options?  Yes, they had many options but simply not the same as they saw men getting. (of course men have never had the options that women had but they have yet to complain, you know, like not dying in wars, or getting to stay at home with the kids while someone else works and supports you, or actually getting compassion and emotional support) What many people don’t realize is that in 1960, prior to feminism, women were 32.3% of the workforce.  That’s right, one third of our workers were women. With all that our gynocentric government has done since then it is now at 47%.  That’s up only 15%.  Women had jobs and worked outside the home.  And how about college?  Again, what most don’t realize is that in 1960, prior to feminism, women received 35% of the college degrees. Does this sound like a group that is oppressed?  No.  Let’s compare them with a group that was oppressed.  Slaves.  Slaves were 0% of the workforce and 0% of the recipients of college degrees.  See the difference?  One group is limited by a rigid sex role and faces discrimination that keeps them out of some professions and some top positions etc and the other group is actually oppressed and forbidden to take part in society.  Huge difference. There is no comparison. Women have made gains in many areas including getting more jobs as professionals such as lawyers and doctors.  They have also surpassed men in obtaining college degrees.  In fact at this point women are getting more degrees than men at the same rate that men had gotten more degrees than women in 1970.  But guess what?  The 1970 figure for women is seen as a sign of discrimination/oppression against women while the 2010 figure for men is seen as a success for women! A part of that misandry is due to feminists and their cronies having gotten away with painting men as the problem and of course we simply don’t care so much about those who are the cause of the problem.  We ignore their pain and suffering.  Sound fair to you? Again, this is just more evidence of our living in a gynocentric world.

The attacks on men’s identity were basically a global false accusation. The feminists took the low road and falsely accused their own partners, the opposite sex, in order to get what they wanted.   These false accusations likely worked on the feminists in the same ways that we saw brainwashing work on the men who betrayed their own origins.  When we betray, we will tend to detach from that which we betray. The feminist betrayals of men likely moved them farther and farther into a detached position. We will also likely be more motivated to collect evidence that the betrayal was justified.  This may give us a clue about the extent the feminists have gone in betraying men. Could it be that the more the feminists betrayed men the more detached they became to men?

And what happens when someone is falsely accused?  The first thing the accused does is often deny that the attack is very important.  From their perspective they know that it is false, it is bogus.  They know it is untrue.  They figure that in a short period people will figure this out and all will be well. They trust that that common sense and compassion will prevail.  A part of this early denial is the minimization of the impact that such a false accusation can have.  It seems to me that this is just how men responded to the early false accusations.  They laughed it off and figured such nonsense would never have much impact.  They were wrong.  What is the worst thing about a false accusation?  It is almost impossible to disprove.  Individual men could say that they were not oppressors but there was no way for men to speak as a group and disprove the false accusations of these constant attacks.  And they started to spread.

So the feminists/women had made a choice:  Insure more stuff for women by attacking men’s identity and integrity.  They frankly seemed like naturals at this tactic.  Labeling men as every sort of bad meme one can imagine.  Men were pigs, men were rapists, men were greedy and unwilling to share with women, men were violent and bullied innocent women in relationship, men were insensitive, men were oversexed, men were testosterone poisoned, men never grew up and the list goes on and on.  Men were bad.  Bad. Bad. Bad.  Not some men, but men in general.  Just try and imagine someone saying similarly negative things about women as a group.  I bet you can’t even imagine it.

In order to maintain this lie of men oppressing women they needed to paint men as more and more terrible oppressors.  They proceeded to create oppressors at every street corner.  Men were oppressing women and keeping them from getting jobs, they were sexually harassing them on the job, men were oppressing women and keeping them tied to the home, men were oppressing women via domestic violence and beating them at home, men were oppressing women by raping them, by keeping them out of schools, by limiting their pay, by keeping them out of boardrooms and top jobs.  Men men men.  Bad guys.  This was drilled into the consciousness of a receptive and gullible public who cheered on the poor dears who had been so oppressed by these evil men. And the funding flowed. The agencies created. The bureaucracy begun. The American public loves an underdog and hates a bully and that is just how this fight was painted, the men were bullies and the women were underdogs. The American public still thinks this way to this day due to these lies.  

Bullies don’t deserve any special treatment.  In fact people tend to hold the attitude that bullies should pay for their bullying. Things like affirmative action might disadvantage men but they have been bullies/oppressors and have “had it all” for years.  The prevailing attitude is that now it is their turn to suffer. Add that to the fact that men are already seen as disposable and these things create a situation where men are much less likely to get any compassion and more likely to have people nod and accept that they experience disadvantage.  No compassion for them. 

This drill went on for years and as it progressed the media and academia picked up the bull horns and started to attack men just as it had been started by mostly feminists. This eventually expanded to nearly every sphere of American life.  The media, academia, the courts, the legislatures everyone had gotten in on the act of blaming men.  Now it was common for all of these factions to beat up on men.  No one cared.  Men were fair game. They were oppressors, they were egocentric bullies.  All things masculine were seen as a problem, all things feminine were seen as a solution.  The men were the oppressors and deserved it.  The fact that so many others were now carrying out the attacks on men’s identity relieved the feminists from having to do so. You rarely hear the men are pigs line or other degrading comments much any more but it is there. After years of attacks the entire culture has taken on the anti-male attitude. It is automatically assumed by most people and because of this it simply does not need to be voiced. The negative stereotype of men  has become a part of the cultural fabric. 

Along with the attacks on male identity came the guilt and shame. This could be seen in all of the name calling and identity attacks but was additionally related to attempts to demean both men and masculinity with blame for the problems of the world. This was not an attempt to make men feel guilty for a specific behavior or something they had done in their lives.  No.  It was more an attempt to have men BE guilty. To be and feel guilty simply for being male.    You were guilty not for something you had done, but for something you were.  You were male.  This is quite similar to the communist Chinese tactic of having their captives live in a world of shame and guilt over who they were not only what they had done. 

There were some places with a much higher density of male hate and contempt than others. Probably the area with the most hatred espoused was academia.  The women’s studies departments were run by radical feminists who voiced this message repeatedly.  Anyone who disagreed would face a great deal of hardship from the university administration. Accusations of misogyny were used as weapons.  Entire faculties started living in fear of appearing in any way to be anti-woman or being pro-male.  They were petrified and even to this day the people I know on college campuses are afraid of the gender politics of the feminists. Very few will speak up even a little in opposition to women and feminists. Everyone knows to stay silent and not draw attention to oneself.  These people have been known to be ruthless and consider themselves infallible. People live in fear of them. This of course is very similar to the Communist Chinese brainwashers. They routinely attack the identity of men, shame and guilt them as being misogynists and do so from a place of infallibility.  Two peas in a pod. 

I think that this high density of man hatred has been at least partly responsible for the lack of gender diversity in resources on today’s college campus.  Almost every place you look are more things for women but there is almost nothing for the men outside of huge mega-buck athletics that doesn’t really help the average guy.  Women’s Centers, women’s safety, women’s groups, women’s health. etc. 

The density of the male/masculinity hatred on campus must also mean that our college campuses are one of the more effective brainwashing centers. All those that pass through, both males and females, get indoctrinated into the anti-male stereotypes from their freshman introductory welcome workshops to their last day on campus.  It is little surprise that  on college campuses we tend to see more male feminists.

It also dawned on me why feminists are so quick to call males misogynists when they are simply talking about the needs of men.  I have noticed this for years that simply mentioning men’s needs will bring on an accusation of hating women.  They are very quick to point out that what is being said is misogynistic.  But why would simply voicing men’s needs be misogynistic?  Well, it can’t be, but what I have assumed over the years is that feminism has a very old habit of voicing the needs of women while at the same time attacking men as the problem.  Could it be that they are simply expecting the same hatefulness they have practiced for years to come back at them from those who start to voice the needs of men?  Seems like a possibility to me. 

Tremendous damage has been done to both men and boys and women and girls over the years. It is going to take a long time to start to shift these hateful attitudes.  Men and boys deserve both choice and compassion. At this point they are getting very little of either. 

A Drought on Masculinity: The Impact on Boys

DroughtWhen a drought hits in Africa the animals head for the few spots that still have available water.  I think we have something similar happening in the US today where we have a drought of masculinity.  Two places where  the masculine still exists are in sports and gaming.  Both these spots offer a masculine environment where competition is the norm and competition rules.  Those who practice harder and are more skilled are rewarded, those who are not, aren’t.  Both these spots lack the politically correct mentality, affirmative action and censorship of interaction.  Boys flock to these places.

Compare this with our schools where 6 year old boys are being expelled for kissing a 6 year old girl or a 7 year old boy is suspended for fashioning his breakfast pastry into a gun and pointing it at someone.  Our schools are dominated by the feminine and by women who have a natural inclination to, understand girls.  They were one.  Boys?  All too often the thinking is that the boys just need to learn to be more like the well behaved and attentive girls. 

The erroneous assumption that many people fall prey to is that we are all a blank slate at birth and then are molded by our socialization. The media and our colleges have been spreading this one-sided notion for nearly 50 years.  This leaves us asking the question “Why can’t the boys just act like the girls?”  If we are all just blank slates that should be easy.  But guess what?  Boys are not like the girls, at least most of them.  They have different bodies, different dreams, different hormones, different brains, different desires and on and on. Young boys generally don’t dream of getting married and having babies, they more often dream of being a dominant sports hero or an explorer, an astronaut, or some other dream that may tickle his well developed fantasy life.  And boys are unique in so many other ways.

And the beat goes on in expecting boys to be like girls around all of the feeling stuff.  Lots of feeling stuff.  Boys should be in touch with their feelings!  Just like the girls!  This drives the boys nuts.  They live in bodies that are not tuned to frequencies that are dominated by feelings.  More likely they are interested in actions.  Most women, of course, don’t have a clue about this difference and wonder why these boys are not “dealing with their feelings,”™ just like they do, just like the girls do. Sometimes they will even ask the boys why they are not “dealing with their feelings?” But wait, have you ever seen a man ask boys something similar?  Probably not. Why not?  Because men grew up as boys and know that the boy’s bio-computer is not set on that frequency.  The lack of having any understanding males in schools is a real problem where boys live in an environment that is all too often clueless about their nature.

Just imagine a school that was run by men.  Men were the teachers, men were the administrators, the coaches, the guidance counselors, the cafeteria workers, etc.  The focus of the schools was on winning and only on winning.  Feelings were not important since they were not connected with winning.  In fact those who shared feelings were punished.  It was a distraction.  Now imagine that all girls in the US had to go through that system over the last 50 years.  What would it do to girls?

In todays feminized schools competition has become a no-no.  Guess what?  Boys thrive on competition.  Ever been to a cub scout meeting and watched what happens?  The boys compete and they love it. One of the mainstays of the meetings used to be competitive games.  No matter that someone loses, its the excitement of wanting to come in first and excel that matters.  I remember my own and my son’s scouting experience with things like the pinewood derby where all of the boys built a  small wooden race car and then competed.  It was great sport.  Did my daughter do anything similar in brownies?  Absolutely not, her groups were focused on relational events, not competitive events. As I remember the Brownies had a “Brownie Circle” and a “Friendship Circle” with the emphasis being on friendship and relating.  I am guessing that things have changed in todays pc world of gender cleansing and the boys are being forced to be more relational.  Just  a guess.  Let’s hope they are having fun competing

Now our schools are promoting the relational and pure competition is going the way of the dodo bird. There is a very feminine push to see everyone as winners and no one as losers.  This has crippled many of our students from missing out on the experience of losing and learning how to both respond to and handle losing. If we don’t help our youngsters by practicing losing we are limiting them. We all need plenty of practice losing and sometimes losing big. This is exactly what helps bring maturity and it is exactly what our culture tries to insulate away from our children.

There’s a private boys school outside of Washington DC that uses boys’ competitive nature to help in both deportment and scholarship.  They divided the school into two groups.  The Blues and the Whites.  When you enroll in that school you are assigned either to the white or the blue team. From that point forward everything you do creates points for or against  your team.  If you get kicked out of class your team suffers, if you get straight A’s your team benefits.  If you excel in sports or extra-curricular activities your team gets points.  The rivalry is fierce.  The boys push each other to get more points and when they have more points they get both special privileges and bragging rights.  Needless to say, the boys do much of the policing of acting out behaviors and the grades are top notch.  Compare this to our default public school that has removed competition from the curriculum. Things have become increasingly buffered from all things competition. The focus is not on who is first, second and third, the focus is on getting along, being nice to each other etc.

This competitive nature of boys and men is not new.  Men have been competing against each other for thousands of years and for good reason.  As men compete they join in the battle for status.  When we win an event our status goes up, when we lose, our status goes down. Men strive to keep their status up.  This is the world in which boys and men live.  At least most of them.  This is the world of striving for status.  And why is it so important for boys to strive for status?  Because their life depends on it.  The higher their status the more likely they will be successful and the more likely they will find reproductive success.  This has been a goal of men for thousands of years, to be the one who gets the girl and then has a family and excels.  This is partly why boys practice competing as  youngsters. They are preparing for later in life.  This is why they HAVE TO GET TO LEVEL 17 in their video game!  It’s all about status.  

You can see something very similar in the animal world.  Usually it is the young males of a species that are involved in rough and tumble play.  Scientists have found that the play of young animals is usually practice for the skills they will need later in life. I think we can see something similar in human boys and girls.  The research is very clear that boys when very young tend to prefer toys like trucks and guns while young girls prefer dolls.  The socialization crowd heard of this research and claimed it was still socialization but just not overt.  Then the researchers did a study on chimpanzee boys and girls and their toy choice and guess what they found?  They found that the little boy chimps preferred the trucks and guns and the little girls chimps preferred the dolls.  The scientists failed to detect any behaviors from the older monkeys to try and stop the boys play with guns or the girls play with dolls.  They seemed to just let them be.  Perhaps we have something to learn from these monkeys? 

Do Girls Compete?

Well, yes, but it is not quite the same.  Girls don’t compete with each other to gain status  just like the boys, they instead, are the ones who “choose.”  The girls watch the men compete, they watch the men who have gotten status and they decide (choose) who they will mate with. How many times have we heard the phrase a woman’s choice or women have choice.  Think back, have you ever heard the phrase a man’s choice or men have choice?  Not so much.  Remember too, that girls are sometimes born with status.  Very attractive women and girls have immediate status that is completely unrelated to their accomplishments or actions, it is instead related to their attractiveness which is due not to their efforts but to their genetics. They may have to do things to keep up their attractiveness like watch their weight or work out but the heavy lifting of being attractive is something she was born with.  A young woman who has symmetrical facial features, the right ratio of hips to waist, and well developed breasts is born with something that men and boys find irresistible.  She knows this and is very aware of how to leverage her attractiveness to manipulate the males.  Unlike the boys, this characteristic is not something she has had to work for, this is something she was born with. I can’t think of any similar process in boys.  The boys don’t have a clue what it would be like to be wanted and desired simply due to a part of their body being a certain way.  Boys are very aware that they succeed by gaining status and that is just what they do.

Then there is the issue of exercise.  The schools in their race away from competition and masculinity have taken away yet another thing that boys need in order to function: they have taken away exercise.  How you ask?  They have stopped recess where traditionally boys have gotten at least 30 minutes of running and jumping to calm their bio-computers.  But no, recess has been either cut or diminished.  In a feminine environment it is just not as important a sitting still.

I can remember when I was in school many years ago that the gym teachers and coaches took a similar approach to discipline.  They were usually pretty tough but the punishment was almost always doing something physical.  Take a lap Golden!  That meant I had done something wrong and my punishment was to run one quarter mile.  I was also banished from the game for that time while my friends played on. Another similar punishment was having to do a certain number of push ups. Give me 20 Golden!  Where is the wisdom in this?  Well, the coaches knew that what the boys needed was a workout and they were more then happy to give it to them if they acted out.  What seemed like a punishment was actually a therapeutic act.  This is exactly what a disobedient young man needs.  He needs to run!  In today’s feminized schools punishments are doled out but I would bet that very few are physical.

Then when these young men can’t run and jump they sit in classrooms and get fidgety and can’t sit still.  The girls can sit still and since we are all equal™ shouldn’t the boys be able to do it? Of course they should! Since the boys don’t and won’t then they are just being impudent and stubborn.  We need to force them to act more like the well behaved girls.  Those darn boys just won’t do it!  We can make them do it, let’s medicate them!

And that is another story.


NOTE –  I heard via twitter that some psychology classes are using this post for class.  I want to thank them for that and also thought I would leave some references that back  up the ideas presented in this post. All too often the research that is done that helps us understand boys and men gets a back seat.  Most people simply don’t hear about it.  The lace curtain is strong on plow.  lol

Here are a couple  of references that help explain boys competitiveness, activity differences, and importantly the 50 year old research driven facts about testosterone in utero.  For those of you who don’t know…boys, that is most boys, get a flood of testosterone in utero that changes their brain and their psychology for life.  Here’s a link to an abstract from an article by Melissa Hines a top hormone researcher on the impact of prenatal testosterone:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25745554

Notice they say very clearly that this flood makes the boys more aggressive, more interested in rough and tumble and coalitional play, impacts his core sexual identity and his sexual orientation.  Chew on that for a while and understand this all happens prior to birth.  here’s the cite for her excellent book.

Hines, Melissa, Michaela Constantinescu, and Debra Spencer. “Early Androgen Exposure and Human Gender Development.” Biology of Sex Differences 6.1 (2015): n. pag. Web.

 Read up on the latest research on testosterone and see that they are junking the old idea that testosterone was the root of aggressiveness and are now thinking that testosterone is focused on STRIVING FOR STATUS.  You know, that competitive stuff the article discussed.  um, yeah.  Check out this article on T

https://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Eisenegger_et_al_TiCS_2011.pdf

or this one  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/tre.372/asset/372_ftp.pdf;jsessionid=53B3E7B15E6388529F4D94039A41789A.f01t03?v=1&t=imqhzw5y&s=e00a4d485283f902db47c8dda990772e5dff81a9

 

NASW News Ignores the Pain and Hardship of Men and Boys

newsBanner

NASW is mandated by its own code of ethics to be there for those in need.  Sadly, it seems that those in need are defined as those who fit the narrative of political correctness.  Men and boys don’t fit that narrative and simply need not apply.  I could give you numerous examples but here is a start:

I was reading the NASW News a national monthly publication for NASW and noticed an article on suicide.  I was aware of NASW’s past history of focusing on girls and suicide even though 80% of completed suicides are males.  I read the article and found that there was no mention of men and boys being the vast majority of those completing suicide.  I wrote the author a letter which he was kind enough to print in the May edition.  Here’s the letter to the editor: (bold text was in the original letter but omitted by NASW)

– I just read your article on suicide in the NASW News.  I am both saddened and shocked that there was no mention of the fact that males comprise 80% of those who complete suicide.  80%.  Jut imagine for a minute that some other malady had 80% of the victims be female or black or just about any other demographic.  Under those circumstances the article would have likely featured entire sections on this or that group that face the bulk of the problem. The least they would have done would be to call attention to the group most impacted.  Why not so with men?  Sadly this is not a new problem.  NASW has been ignoring men as victims of suicide for many years having sponsored research on the suicide of women even though women are a fraction of those who actually complete suicide.

The obvious importance of the 80% stat is that men comprise a group that is unlikely to seek help in traditional settings.  If people are very serious about wanting to help with suicide they had better start figuring out what might help men and how to attract men to treatment.  At this point we are failing miserably and that is important for Social Workers to know.  Finland was the world’s first country to take actions to help men and they have had considerable success.  Australia is starting to work in that direction.  The US is a Neanderthal with the media blacking out this important bit of information.

It is an embarrassment to me that NASW maintains such a sexist and misandrist attitude towards men and their difficulties.  NASW was at the forefront of creating a White House Council on Women and Girls but when NASW was approached about supporting a proposed White House Council on Boys and Men they at first said they would look into it, but failed in ever responding, even after being prompted.  Many wonder why there are not more men in Social Work.  It seems clear enough to me.

I wrote a report on men and suicide when I served as the vice chairman of the Maryland Commission for Men’s Health.  If you have any interest you can see the official version here (appendix D): http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/Exec/DHMH/HG13-2407_2010(add).pdf

Endocrine Disruptors: Are Our Boys and Men at Risk?

800px-Bassboat1The following article is another example of a problem that impacts boys and men considerably more than women and girls.   The difference is that this problem does not seem to be a result of feminism, gynocentrism, or our white knight legislators.  This is a result of our lifestyle, our corporations, and our biology.

The sad truth is that we are living in a world that is saturated by chemicals that mimic human hormones.  These chemicals have been dubbed “Endocrine Disruptors” since their mimicking confuses and throws off the delicate balance of our human endocrine system.  EDC’s as they are called, (endocrine disrupting chemicals) are all around us. They are in our streams, our lakes, our grocery stores, our carpeting, our lawns, our cars, in the food we eat, in our toothpaste, soaps, plastics and just about everywhere you look. Most of these are derivatives of fossil fuels, often plastics.  They are in fertilizers, pesticides, even the byproducts of pills like birth control pills,  This stuff is everywhere.

But what is the big deal?  Why get hyped up about these small amounts of chemicals?

The informative endocrinedisruption.org web site states that “Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) interfere with hormone signaling in a variety of ways depending on the chemical and the hormone system.”  They go on to state that “biomonitering of chemicals in the blood and urine has shown that 100% of the people tested have EDC’s in their bodies.” So this is not about someone else, this is about you and me.

This is not a small dilemma. The same web site states that EDC’s have been implicated in neurological diseases, reproductive disorders, thyroid dysfunction, immune and metabolic disorders and more. But guess what?  These chemicals impact boys and men considerably more than they do girls and women.  Look at the list of problems that are thought to be related to EDC’s and males:  ADHD, autism, learning disabilities, delayed puberty, hypospadias, obesity, early testicular cancer, male dysgenisis syndrome, prostate cancer and more.  Almost all of these problems have been growing each year.  ADHD has been increasing by 3% each year since 1997 and 5% a year since 2003. Many scientists are starting to believe that EDC’s are a part of this problem.

Imagine the havoc you could wreak if you started taking hormones into your body, you could throw off a very delicate balance of a finely tuned system by increasing the amount of one hormone or another.  Imagine we started giving boys and girls additional estrogen on a daily basis.  What do you think would happen?  It would likely confuse their  biological system and throw the normal process into chaos.  Right.  This is a crude description of what is happening in our world today.  Both boys and girls are exposed to substances (EDC’s) that mimic estrogen (most EDC’s mimic estrogen or in some cases block testosterone) and these substances are throwing off the natural balance of the endocrine system. But these are in such small amounts, you wouldn’t think they would be that harmful, right?  Wrong.

The endocrine system is extraordinarily sensitive.  In fact, it is amazing.  It makes decisions based on infinitesimal amounts of hormones that are released in the body. One of the pioneers in understanding Endocrine Disrupters is Theo Colburn, PhD.  Listen to the way she describes things in her book Our Stolen Future “The endocrine system is so fine-tuned that it depends on changes in hormones in concentrations of a tenth of a trillion of a gram to control the womb environment. That’s as inconspicuous as one second in 3,619 centuries.”  This is why it is so critical to worry over even tiny amounts of chemicals around us that mimic hormones.  A tiny amount can cause big problems.

The place those tiny amounts can cause the biggest difficulties is in the womb. It’s a contained environment that is controlled by minute amounts of hormones.  Developmental actions and processes are started and stopped in the womb by these tiny amounts of hormones.  If the mother has EDC’s in her system from the food she eats, the soft plastic raincoat she wears or drinking from plastic bottles this can cause difficulties to the infant in utero.  This is obliviously the most vulnerable time since fetal development is often related to minute changes in hormone levels.  If you have substances in utero that throw off that sensitive balance by mimicking natural hormones you can have permanent damage to the fetus.  

Then shortly after birth the infant may be less vulnerable but is often subject to plastic bottles from which  they drink warm liquid, plastic pacifiers they suck on, or a huge array of other ways to ingest EDC’s.  Have you ever taken a swig of water out of a clear plastic bottle that had gotten warm in the sun?  When you did, did it taste plasticky?  What you were tasting was the endocrine disrupters that had been released from the plastic when heated.  You just got a dose of estrogen.

Theo Colburn calls EDC’s the “stealth” chemicals and for good reason. The government has been testing for cancer producing agents for some time but the tests needed to evaluate a possible endocrine disrupter are much more subtle.  With 12,000 new chemicals entered into our country every day it would be an overwhelming task to keep tabs on them all.  This means that many of the endocrine disrupters are probably going under the radar.    The EPA has been mandated to test for EDC’s for some time but has dragged its feet to such a degree that law suits have been filed to force them to do so.   According to Colburn the corporations are spending mega-bucks to keep this quiet.  They have a huge investment in their products and seem more concerned about their profit than about human suffering.

So how does this stuff manifest?

Scientists were shocked to find that male alligators at a lake in Florida had shriveled testicles and genitals.  The gators also showed high levels of female hormones.  What was going on?  They struggled to figure it out and ultimately came to the conclusion that these poor gators had been victims of EDC’s from the pesticide DDE that had found its way into the lake. These chemicals had created chaos in the male gators and their genitals proved it.   

Male fish are also taking a hit from EDC’s.  Many fish across the country are now swimming in water that has higher levels of EDC’s.  Fish tend to have their sex determined by the levels of hormones in their bodies.  When the hormones are at a certain level that fish will be male, when it is at a different level it will be a female.  So now we have fish swimming in water that is higher and higher with EDC’s that mimic estrogens and guess what happens?  The EDC’s impact the males in a profound manner.  They turn the males into non-descript fish that has genitalia that is a bizarre mix of male and female.   It is  the male fish that have been seen showing the bizarre genitalia, sometimes the male fish will grow eggs instead of testes!  What a mess.

But what about humans?

One of the suspected connections with EDC’s is that of changing the timing of puberty for both boys and girls.  Girls onset of puberty has been steadily getting younger and younger. It used to be that girls would enter puberty around 11-12 years old with boys lagging about a year after them.  But now guess what is happening?  Girls are entering puberty when they are 9 years old on average and even younger in the black community.  At the same time the boys puberty is becoming delayed.  Many experts are thinking the EDC’s mimicking estrogens plays a part in this.

Human males also seem to be taking the hardest hit  from the EDC’s.  American boys today are three times more likely to be born with genital abnormalities then boys 30 years ago. The frequency of smaller then normal penis’s, hypospadias, and undescended testes are all examples of this.

Scientists are also thinking that the drop in testosterone levels of boys and men in the past 30 years may also be due to the EDC’s.  A 35 year old man today has 20% of testosterone of a 35 year old man 30 years ago.  Men just aren’t like they used to be…

Leonard Sax points out that the bone strength of boys seems to be deteriorating.  Boys today are nearly twice as likely to break bones as boys were 30 years ago and many are thinking this is related to lowered bone density due to EDC’s.  It seems at the same time that girls bone density may be going up.  Go figure.  

The only good news is that we do have some power in limiting our exposure to EDC’s.  Eating whole foods that are unprocessed, eating organic foods that have not been exposed to pesticides, wearing clothes are have not been treated with chemicals, and on and on.  We all need to become more informed about this problem, especially when it comes to women who are thinking about getting pregnant. For more information on EDC’s you can find some great information on youtube. Here’s a start but I would urge you to google it and see what you find.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some beginning resources:

Theo Colburn, PhD. has done a video titled the Endocrine Disruptors, The Male Predicament.   It is a quick introduction to this problem from the scientist who first named the problem back in the 1990’s. <7 minutes

Theo Colburn  —  Endocrine Disruption: Are Males at Risk?    < 48minutes

PBS FRONTLINE HORMONE DISRUPTERS / XENOESTROGENS  < 4 minutes

Theo Colburn reads letter to the white house about EDC’s < 18 minutes

War against boys. Are the ADHD Drugs Unsafe?

hose

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you heard anything in the media about the meds used for ADHD being unsafe? I would bet not. But guess what? There’s been quite a bit of scientific data pointing towards that very possibility. Just have a look at this page:

http://www.leonardsax.com/stimulants.html

Leonard Sax, M.D. has been pointing out these potential risk factors for some time and I can’t remember seeing any articles in the news media other then those written by Sax.

The worst thing about these potential side effects and brain changes resulting from these meds is that they center around de-motivating the boy. The very thing that the medicine is trying to do, to help him focus, is negated by this potential impact of simply not wanting to get out of bed. Here’s what Sax says in his excellent book on boys, Boys Adrift:

“The stimulant medications appear to exert their harmful effects by damaging an area of the developing brain called the nucleus accumbens. Independent groups of researchers at the University of Michigan, the Medical University of South Carolina, the University of Pittsburgh, Brown University as well as in Sweden, Italy, and the Netherlands all have found that exposing laboratory animals to these medications, even at low doses and for short periods can cause permanent damage to the nucleus accumbens, the part of the brain that is responsible for translating motivation into action. if a boy’s nucleus accumbens is damaged, he may still feel hungry, or sexually aroused. He just won’t feel motivated to do anything about it.”

Sax states that we can’t be certain yet about the damage in humans since the evidence is not fully in. However, he asks parents a simple question: Would you like to volunteer your son for a trial?

Most parents would say no. But that is only if they know the dangers. At this point very few people seem to know these drugs may be risky.  I have seen no headlines, heard no “60 Minutes” reports or specials on NPR. I have heard nothing about the possible risks involved. Silence. Just consider what might happen if medications used for mostly girls were found to have a similar risk. There would be a firestorm of articles about the misogyny of the medical professionals and the pharmaceutical companies labeling them as patriarchal evil doers and oppressors. It would likely be front page material. But not so with boys.

tractorBut it gets worse. The media is usually informed by medical professionals and those folks are simply not speaking up, or worse yet, they are saying the opposite. Take Dr Biederman for example. Dr. Joseph Biederman is the chief of pediatric psychopharmacology at Massachusetts General Hospital. You know, the hospital associated with Harvard University.  Here’s a bit from Wikipedia about Dr Biederman:

In 2007, Biederman was ranked as the second highest producer of high-impact papers in psychiatry overall throughout the world with 235 papers cited a total of 7048 times over the past 10 years as determined by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI).[2] The same organization ranked Biederman at #1 in terms of total citations to his papers published on ADD/ADHD in the past decade.[3]

Biederman was the recipient of the 1998 NAMI Exemplary Psychiatrist award. He was also selected by the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society Awards committee as the recipient of the 2007 Outstanding Psychiatrist Award for Research. In 2007, Biederman received the Excellence in Research Award from the New England Council of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. He was also awarded the Mentorship Award from the Department of Psychiatry at the Massachusetts General Hospital.

This is someone who’s opinion is counted by all and especially by the media.

And what does Dr Biederman say about these drugs. According to Sax he has been “strenuously encouraging” their use. Why would the head of Harvard’s hospital pharmacology not mention the risks of these drugs? Well, we don’t know but we do know one thing, Dr Biederman received 1.6 million dollars from the pharmaceuticals and never bothered to tell anyone. You do the math.

Then there is Dr. Fred Goodwin, former chief of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Apparently Dr Goodwin has been singing a similar tune about these drugs being safe and guess what? He has now been outed as getting 1.3 milion dollars from the pharmaceuticals.

How many more Biederman’s and Goodwins are out there? Maybe these doctors are part of the reason we haven’t been hearing much?

Parents need to know the risks involved. If the media and our medical professionals won’t do it, we need to. Send this article and its links to parents who might need to know this information.

More from Leonard Sax, M.D.
Risky, Even Used as Intended
More info on Biederman, Goodwin and the kickbacks.
Boys Adrift on Amazon (on Kindle)