A quick online search utilizing the words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals a variety of courses that are offered for roughly $250-$500 dollars a day. Add this for the air fare, meals and lodging and you have easily spent thousands to go this type of training. The websites that provide this training look slick, with professional rotating pictures of limousines, private jets, yachts, limos and guys with guns. It really is testosterone heaven. But wait…..there’s more!
As you may click throughout the tabs you can see all of the services that are offered: Personal Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all, and a multitude of courses that are offered; from Handgun Training to High Risk Environments. And, in the event you register for a course now, you get a 10% discount on your own next outrageously priced course! With many of these great pictures and all of these types of services accessible, they should be legitimate and professional, right? Buyer, beware! Several of these websites are definitely more like the Wizard of Oz compared to Fantastic Four; because what lies behind the curtain can be a big disappointment. However you wouldn’t recognize that from exploring the website.
The Spanish and Portuguese roots of the word pertain to masculinity being preferable over femininity. Machismo, as commonly interpreted today in the usa is described as a “strong or exaggerated experience of masculinity stressing attributes like physical courage, viri-lity and aggressiveness; an exaggerated experience of strength or toughness”. This definition would describe the stereotypical perception a lot of people have of your tactical support service. In fact, many of these types of personalities are attracted to the profession. There are more reasons also.
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 modifications in se-x role expectations in marriage, family researchers have begun to examine the thought of machismo. Two characteristics dominant in the study of machismo are aggressiveness and hyper-se-xuality. A biological style of machismo asserts that males everywhere are certainly more aggressive than females, a se-x difference which appears to experience 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 affected by the drive for one’s genes to reproduce themselves. A generally accepted psychological theory views machismo as being an expression of an inferiority complex. Most research on machismo is fixed towards the lower classes. Research from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and the usa demonstrates that lower class males are afflicted by job insecurity and make up for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and also subordinating women. Other studies indicate distant father-son relationships as you factor leading to feelings of inferiority as well as the creation of machismo. Women may support machismo because they are submissive, dependent, and passive. The mixture of feeling inferior and acting superior is machismo, a trait that is certainly repeated generation after generation. If men may be socialized toward male parental investment, the incidence of machismo may decline along with the incidences of males feeling self-esteem and girls feeling comparable to men may rise”.
Using this pool of folks, we will expect to see women and men enlisting in professions like Executive Protection since they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate simply by entering a risky profession, which often enables them to feel superior. I will affirmatively assert this is true. The bulk of my company is training, and i also have probably trained several thousand students at this point within my career. One of several courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a compact percentage, I actually have met my fair share of overcompensating students trying to deal with 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: “All over the world, boys and girls would rather fiddle with several types of toys. Boys typically like to play with cars and trucks, while girls typically opt to enjoy dolls. How come this? A regular sociological explanation is the fact that girls and boys are socialized and motivated to play with various kinds of toys by their parents, peers, as well as 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 the uk 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 along with 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 and a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. Then they assessed the monkeys’ preference for every toy by measuring how much time they spent with each. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater desire for the masculine toys, along with the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater curiosity about the feminine toys. The 2 s-exes did not differ with their preference for the neutral toys.
In the 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 people in another primate species (rhesus monkeys). Their study reveals that, when given an alternative between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (like a wagon, a truck, and a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (such as Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Ann, as well as a koala bear hand puppet), male rhesus monkeys show strong and significant preference for your masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for that 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 along with the author of Why Kids Kill: Inside of 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 the military is available among serial killers and school shooters, as well as a minumum of one spree killer. What significance could there be to this particular pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ fascination with the military seemed to be their attempt to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into a suitable outlet. Their www.tacticalsupportservice.com strike security 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 may have been viewed as a means of establishing masculine identities for their own reasons. Their failures to achieve this goal could have possessed a devastating affect on them. Perhaps their armed rampages were an attempt to exhibit the globe just how capable these folks were of using weapons. They can have got their rejections and failures like a personal assault on their own masculinity, and so felt driven to show to everyone they were powerful men indeed”.