If you watched the World Cup final, you witnessed two things which are hugely important to the history of global gender relations: male coalitional violence and the rise of impartial institutions.
To identify violence between people as a male trait is a naïve idea. Violence arises where culture fails to set rules. Just look at women’s basketball in the US, for example, where the white player Caitlyn Clark is physically attacked for racist reasons. Women are just as violent as men in conflicts, provided they reckon they have a chance of winning. Of course, warriors are male, simply because women are weaker. But that does not mean wars are male, for behind the warriors stand the women who expect to be protected and defended by men.
Thanks Alice for tackling (sorry) the dark underbelly of the beautiful game. As a side note the Spanish women team also made sure that unwanted body contact off the field got dealt with, no more uninvited kissing by presidents
“Professional Fouls” generally result in yellow cards (cautions), unless they impede a clear goal scoring opportunity. Lots of discretion given to refs on this. Most games have a professional foul or two. Most do not result in red cards (expulsions). Other than that, good article. Seems there’s a missing argument, however, that channeling male aggression into sport can be a positive thing.
Yes "professional foul" is not a concept in the Laws of the Game. It's only red for denying a goal scoring opportunity. Tactical fouls are how 5s make their living.
And again, no mention of the fact that US employers (in tech) favor males when they import foreign workers. About 80% of the capped H-1B non-immigrant visas/work-permits are issued to males. About the same percentage goes for work-based Green Cards.
Women are allowed to accompany on H-4 visas, so they can be "of service" to their H-1B husbands, but that is all. They are not allowed to have a career, a life. For them no "pursuit of happiness".
All legal - which is shameful. Accepted also by female US politicians - which is even more shameful.
Why am I not surprised by the development of such behavior in professional soccer? Basically because of increasing UFC normalization.
Learning and mastering self-defense skills is one thing, but society’s increasingly violent sporting events also serve as bad examples of how boys, and even girls, can behave towards one another. And yet the violence-match producers legally sell live-viewing tickets to eagerly excited individuals and commercial-time slots to legitimate business advertisers.
Notably, boxing was bad enough as a violent professional sport, but then came ultimate fighting championship events that use barely covered knuckles and even bare knees for knock-out blows. Also disturbing are the overly-eager onlookers.
… In the early 1980s, I’d see from a distance the mostly-male ‘audience’ at the after-classes fights between a pair of almost-always male students, one of whom was needed to initiate the barbaric exchange. A few years later, during my own troubled teens, I visually and mentally observed how by ‘swinging first’ a guy potentially places himself in an unanticipated psychological disadvantage — one favoring the combatant who chooses to patiently wait for his opponent to take the first swing, perhaps even without the fist necessarily connecting.
Just having the combatant swing at him before he’d even given his challenger a physical justification for doing so seemed to instantly create a combined psychological and physical imperative within to react to that swung fist with justified anger. In fact, such testosterone-prone behavior may be reflected in the typically male (perhaps unconsciously strategic) invitation for one’s foe to ‘go ahead and lay one on me,’ while tapping one’s own chin with his forefinger.
Ergo, if you're going to initiate a physical (or verbal, for that matter) conflict, be CERTAIN you're in a psychologically-secure state of mind, i.e. that you genuinely believe you are in the moral and ethical right. It is a theoretical advantage not widely noticed by both the regular scrapper mindset or general society. Instead of the commonly expected advantage of an opponent-stunning first blow, the hit triggers an infuriated response earning the instigator multi-fold returned-payment blows.
[A friend has informed me, however, that he’d heard/read of research showing that the one to throw the first serious punch usually turns out to be the victor. … Still, I say, being ‘tough’ does not necessarily mean one is a good fighter, i.e. quick with the fists and feet; nor does being good/quick with the hands/fists indicate one is ‘tough’, the latter meaning one can take a lot of blows. When taken down, irrevocably pinned onto the grown and repeatedly hit by an otherwise slower fighter, some guys that are good with weaponizing their limbs will give in sooner, if not begin to whimper.]
But matters should remain peaceful, or at least non-violent, if every party shows the other due respect. And, of course, everyone follows the basic rule: Only a physical first swing will justify a returned swing. And, similarly, a verbal assault is merited only when in response to one. I believe this is the far more civilized approach to social/human conflict. Conversely, those people who will hit someone without any real, i.e. physical, provocation should do some serious psychological self-examination.
The football part is a highly biased interpretation of the game. Defense, very much including tactical fouling, has always been an inherent part of the game and one of the reasons favorites only win 55% of the time. This is essential to the global appeal. Poor countries can and do beat Europe all the time (see Paraguay vs France tactical proposition). The changes have been driven by for profit considerations, seeking to protect the more expensive creative stars, and generate higher scoring games, at the expense of game integrity and opportunity for poorer clubs, countries.
Finally, not clear delegating all enforcement to the referee is optimal. Ice Hockey, and to an extent, rugby union, rely on intra player enforcement successfully. See how Tom Wilson dealt with French thuggery in the Olympics in a game where Canada destroyed France 10-2. No referee intervention necessary.
The football parallel earns its keep, and the VAR point especially. One thing the essay leaves implicit: in each case the fix was to protect the official rather than to tighten the rule. England's version was the judicial clause of the Act of Settlement, which was suspended by its own terms and commenced only on Queen Anne's death in 1714, giving judges tenure during good behaviour with removal only on an address of both Houses. Randomising referee appointments after the Italian scandal is the same move on a smaller field. Which of the institutions still failing women fail because the rule is weak, and which because the enforcer can be removed?
The section "Punishing thuggery" called to (my) mind the self-domestication hypothesis, which, if correct, suggests that humans have already engaged in this practice in significant ways in the past. According to Claude, the genetic evidence at this point (about a dozen years after the hypothesis was first stated) is consistent with the hypothesis but not (yet?) strong enough to establish it as likely to have happened. See here for a further discussion of the hypothesis:
Excellent. Not very encouraging as we witness the decline of the rule of law in the US and the increase in corruption and might makes right
I don’t recall how I found you but I’m eternally grateful I did. Everything I feel, you so eloquently illustrate. I’m hugging you through the screen 💕
Aww! Thank you Izzy!
To identify violence between people as a male trait is a naïve idea. Violence arises where culture fails to set rules. Just look at women’s basketball in the US, for example, where the white player Caitlyn Clark is physically attacked for racist reasons. Women are just as violent as men in conflicts, provided they reckon they have a chance of winning. Of course, warriors are male, simply because women are weaker. But that does not mean wars are male, for behind the warriors stand the women who expect to be protected and defended by men.
Thanks Alice for tackling (sorry) the dark underbelly of the beautiful game. As a side note the Spanish women team also made sure that unwanted body contact off the field got dealt with, no more uninvited kissing by presidents
“Professional Fouls” generally result in yellow cards (cautions), unless they impede a clear goal scoring opportunity. Lots of discretion given to refs on this. Most games have a professional foul or two. Most do not result in red cards (expulsions). Other than that, good article. Seems there’s a missing argument, however, that channeling male aggression into sport can be a positive thing.
Yes "professional foul" is not a concept in the Laws of the Game. It's only red for denying a goal scoring opportunity. Tactical fouls are how 5s make their living.
And again, no mention of the fact that US employers (in tech) favor males when they import foreign workers. About 80% of the capped H-1B non-immigrant visas/work-permits are issued to males. About the same percentage goes for work-based Green Cards.
Women are allowed to accompany on H-4 visas, so they can be "of service" to their H-1B husbands, but that is all. They are not allowed to have a career, a life. For them no "pursuit of happiness".
All legal - which is shameful. Accepted also by female US politicians - which is even more shameful.
Why am I not surprised by the development of such behavior in professional soccer? Basically because of increasing UFC normalization.
Learning and mastering self-defense skills is one thing, but society’s increasingly violent sporting events also serve as bad examples of how boys, and even girls, can behave towards one another. And yet the violence-match producers legally sell live-viewing tickets to eagerly excited individuals and commercial-time slots to legitimate business advertisers.
Notably, boxing was bad enough as a violent professional sport, but then came ultimate fighting championship events that use barely covered knuckles and even bare knees for knock-out blows. Also disturbing are the overly-eager onlookers.
… In the early 1980s, I’d see from a distance the mostly-male ‘audience’ at the after-classes fights between a pair of almost-always male students, one of whom was needed to initiate the barbaric exchange. A few years later, during my own troubled teens, I visually and mentally observed how by ‘swinging first’ a guy potentially places himself in an unanticipated psychological disadvantage — one favoring the combatant who chooses to patiently wait for his opponent to take the first swing, perhaps even without the fist necessarily connecting.
Just having the combatant swing at him before he’d even given his challenger a physical justification for doing so seemed to instantly create a combined psychological and physical imperative within to react to that swung fist with justified anger. In fact, such testosterone-prone behavior may be reflected in the typically male (perhaps unconsciously strategic) invitation for one’s foe to ‘go ahead and lay one on me,’ while tapping one’s own chin with his forefinger.
Ergo, if you're going to initiate a physical (or verbal, for that matter) conflict, be CERTAIN you're in a psychologically-secure state of mind, i.e. that you genuinely believe you are in the moral and ethical right. It is a theoretical advantage not widely noticed by both the regular scrapper mindset or general society. Instead of the commonly expected advantage of an opponent-stunning first blow, the hit triggers an infuriated response earning the instigator multi-fold returned-payment blows.
[A friend has informed me, however, that he’d heard/read of research showing that the one to throw the first serious punch usually turns out to be the victor. … Still, I say, being ‘tough’ does not necessarily mean one is a good fighter, i.e. quick with the fists and feet; nor does being good/quick with the hands/fists indicate one is ‘tough’, the latter meaning one can take a lot of blows. When taken down, irrevocably pinned onto the grown and repeatedly hit by an otherwise slower fighter, some guys that are good with weaponizing their limbs will give in sooner, if not begin to whimper.]
But matters should remain peaceful, or at least non-violent, if every party shows the other due respect. And, of course, everyone follows the basic rule: Only a physical first swing will justify a returned swing. And, similarly, a verbal assault is merited only when in response to one. I believe this is the far more civilized approach to social/human conflict. Conversely, those people who will hit someone without any real, i.e. physical, provocation should do some serious psychological self-examination.
The football part is a highly biased interpretation of the game. Defense, very much including tactical fouling, has always been an inherent part of the game and one of the reasons favorites only win 55% of the time. This is essential to the global appeal. Poor countries can and do beat Europe all the time (see Paraguay vs France tactical proposition). The changes have been driven by for profit considerations, seeking to protect the more expensive creative stars, and generate higher scoring games, at the expense of game integrity and opportunity for poorer clubs, countries.
Finally, not clear delegating all enforcement to the referee is optimal. Ice Hockey, and to an extent, rugby union, rely on intra player enforcement successfully. See how Tom Wilson dealt with French thuggery in the Olympics in a game where Canada destroyed France 10-2. No referee intervention necessary.
The football parallel earns its keep, and the VAR point especially. One thing the essay leaves implicit: in each case the fix was to protect the official rather than to tighten the rule. England's version was the judicial clause of the Act of Settlement, which was suspended by its own terms and commenced only on Queen Anne's death in 1714, giving judges tenure during good behaviour with removal only on an address of both Houses. Randomising referee appointments after the Italian scandal is the same move on a smaller field. Which of the institutions still failing women fail because the rule is weak, and which because the enforcer can be removed?
— Nazem
The section "Punishing thuggery" called to (my) mind the self-domestication hypothesis, which, if correct, suggests that humans have already engaged in this practice in significant ways in the past. According to Claude, the genetic evidence at this point (about a dozen years after the hypothesis was first stated) is consistent with the hypothesis but not (yet?) strong enough to establish it as likely to have happened. See here for a further discussion of the hypothesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-domestication
especially the section, Language-based conspiracy.
However, according to the hypothesis, this practice would have depended heavily on male coalitional violence.