This lengthy but intriguing essay by Andrew Sullivan examines the role of testosterone in a man’s life and in the world. For himself, injections of testosterone are a health requirement, being that he is H.I.V.-positive. His experience with these injections gave him amazing first hand knowledge on how increased testosterone levels affects a man’s body, both physically and psychologically. He compares the hormone to a double espresso, and explains that it brings about feelings of strength, energy, lust, and impulsiveness. Sullivan also inspects the effects of testosterone through his immense research. In studying the results of injecting testosterone into animals, he points out that it is undeniable that typical “male” behavior corresponds to testosterone levels. Though in some species females have higher testosterone levels and are dominant, in humans, it is obvious that males have these attributes. Sullivan also puts forth that testosterone levels are sensitive to the environment, which is supported by studies of testosterone levels of people in different circumstances and situations.
Sullivan goes on to explore the relationship between testosterone and gender inequality. He concludes that it would be ridiculous to assume that natural physical and psychological differences between men and women have nothing to do with male dominance in several aspects of society. He thinks it is unsurprising that professions such as military combat, sports, politics, and gambling are disproportionately male, and I agree with him. It makes sense for women to have separate sports leagues and such because they are obviously at different levels of strength and endurance than men. He also asserts that “it is foolish to insist that numerical inequality is always a function of bias rather than biology.” At this point, I feel like he’s taking it a bit too far. I don’t deny that there is a correlation between testosterone levels and performance in the business world, but to attribute this success entirely to biology seems a little extreme. There is obviously a gender inequality and I don’t think it is as natural as Sullivan makes it out to be.
Pages
Meta
Andrew Sullivan addresses the use of testosterone in his article which greatly impacts the behavior of males. It creates a new realm of addititue towards his life and how he perceives male. His first dose gave him physical attributes such as facial hair and toned his body. While the second reaction caused him to become more become more irrational in his thinking process. His behavior becomes more aggressive, in which he states adolescent male violence becomes more common. As stated above he is H.I.V positive thus causing him to become weak and rapid weight loss. The use of testosterone helps him maintain the average level that his body was supposed to produce. In his daily supplement he takes 200mg of testosterone injection which provides him with the ability of extra energy. Those are the positive aspects, the negative would be shortening attention span, and judgments are irregular. The supplement causes him to become a totally different person. He would start to do irrational things such as cursing, getting hot headed when something that doesn’t please his mind and he comes very impatience. It causes a person to become more self confident, become more competitive, rejuvenates there energy and the lust for sex.
He claims that male species are more likely to be politicians because of the amount of testosterones that a male body produces. The ratio is vast; females would produce 40 to 60 while males produce 300 to 1000. Knowing the large difference and the effects, he claims that “with low testosterone patience, risk aversion, empathy can lead to excellent governance.” This means that men are far better to become successful candidates in the political arena. To an extent, I think his point of view might be true but it’s also depends on individuals who have the ability to run for office. There is obviously and huge difference between males and females since it’s a biological factor that separates the two, thus different sport leagues are created to separate them.
Pelin, I love the ideas that you bring up about Sullivan and his ideas of testosterone. I somewhat agree that Sullivan may be taking it to extreme that biology is the source of success which leads to the understanding that Sullivan’s argument is that men are more dominant in profession. But, I’ve been wondering, since testosterone seems to be the big issue here, if estrogen could be injected into a man and what would the effects be? No offense intended, but to me it raises the question of whether the man will have the qualities of the woman incapable of becoming a political leader? Of course, this is only mentioned according to Sullivan’s argument and bias, not mine.
I would say that Sullivan’s bias is rather apparent, and he’s unapologetic in announcing how he feels at the end of his essay. At the same time, he frequently tries to come across as open minded, recognizing in moments that social forces play an important role. But in doing so, he’s trying to create an impression that he’s thoughtful, unsexist, enlightened, etc., and that allows him to smuggle in all kinds of rather old-fashioned and pro-male ideas. I’d also add that he seems to celebrate all the qualities that testosterone produces as longs as he’s talking about men and women. But when he brings up race, and notes that African American males tend to have more testosterone than white males, then suddenly testosterone becomes the cause of all variety of undesirable traits: aggression, impulsiveness, etc. So his biases and prejudices creep out by the end of the article.