Lesson 4 of The Professor in the Cage

Essay One for 100 Points Based on Choosing One of the Following Options

Option 1

In the context of Gottschall’s The Professor in the Cage, develop an argumentative thesis about the relationship between masculinity and ritualized violence. Your essay should be 1,000 words and have a Works Cited page with 3 sources, including one from the El Camino College database.

Option 2

Support, refute, or complicate the assertion that Steve Almond's "The NFL Is Morally Reprehensible" is a compelling argument against Gottschall's case that ritualized violence is a natural and essential part of masculinity. 

 

Arguments against JG's book to consider:

One. His book may have some truth in genetic hardwiring of males, but it's too extreme. Socialization is a factor also. For example, it used to be essential to one's manliness and honor to engage in a duel, but this suicidal ritual is now extinct due to socialization. Manly codes don't require that men engage in duels. 

Rebuttal to the Above

JG has never dismissed socialization. Nor has he endorsed dueling. He is simply stating that society is in denial about the significant role biology plays in gender roles.

Two. JG's book encourages stereotypes. Males and females break out of rigid role expectations all the time. JG's book desires to reinforce gender stereotypes. 

Rebuttal to the Above

JG has never attempted to tell individual men or women how to behave. He is simply observing patterns of behavior recorded throughout history. He acknowledges that gender roles will always have outliers or exceptions, and never does he criticize these exceptions.

Three. JG is too emotionally involved in the subject to see that his own masculine insecurity drives his argument, not facts. In other words, JG should not take an individual crisis and try to make a general principle about it. Perhaps another man with an identity or self-worth crisis would empower himself, not through MMA training, but by playing piano, guitar, or working on his tennis serve. 

Rebuttal to the Above

This book is part memoir. By its very nature, then, this book must be passionate if it is to be successful. No one wants to read a perfunctory memoir. That JG can combine passion with astute scholarship attests to the intellectual rigor of his writing and reinforces the claim that his book is a cogent look at the biological role of masculinity.

Four. JG draws on a lot of truth but perhaps exaggerates his claims. Perhaps he's not wrong absolutely but by degree. 

Rebuttal to the Above

I cannot rebut any claims to exaggeration unless the writer be more specific. Next criticism, please.

Five. JG's book is a misreading of his life. He's not suffering a masculinity crisis, as he likes to believe. Rather, he is suffering from a meaning of life crisis--a crisis about a man who lacks purpose. 

Rebuttal to the Above

The above criticism is an egregious example of the either/or fallacy. We do not have the either/or proposition that JG has either a masculinity crisis OR a meaning of life crisis. In fact, he may have both and there may be a connection between the two. Only a reader with a superficial grasp of JG’s book would make such a fallacious comment.

Six. While a masculinity crisis affects JGs journey, JG doesn’t focus enough on his purpose quest and instead does a “book stunt” or a book gimmick perhaps based on misguided ambition. As a result, his thesis is only half convincing and his book has a lot of padding. The book could have been at least 50 pages shorter.

Rebuttal to the Above

JG admits he uses a gimmick. Perhaps his book is a mix of ambition and sincere curiosity about the role of biology in masculinity. We shouldn’t fault him. None of us are pure. All of us have complicated “impure” motives even behind the best things we do.

Study Questions

One. Why do men fight both for real and for play?

JG cites 10 reasons:

1. Men fight to test themselves.
2. Men fight to pin each other on a hierarchy scale, what some might call the Man Points scale.
3. Men have natural, testosterone-fueled aggression.
4. Men fight to cultivate courage, what men call “heart.” By fighting, men acclimate to the pain and this acclimation, to be able to “take a hit,” allows one to “be a man.”
5. Men fight to bond with other men by affirming their shared courage.
6. Men fight to win the esteem of others.
7. Men fight to feel alive and feel freed from civilization’s numbing prison. See the movie Fight Club or read the novel.
8. Men fight to prepare for the real world of competition. See page 136.
9. Men fight to form alliances with other men. See page 135.
10. Men fight in ritualized combat as form of the “monkey dance,” a dance that leads to peace and prevents men from killing each other.

Two. Do boys and girls play the same?

No, their playing styles clash. Boys and girls engage in same-gender play 11 times more than mixed gender by their time their six (137).

Three. How can we explain the appeal of female MMA? Doesn’t it shatter JG’s thesis that violent sports belong to men?

People, regardless of gender, have similar basic drives that can be explained by the spike in interest in women’s MMA:

1. The craving for attention
2. The craving for relevance
3. The craving for validation
4. The craving for dominance
5. The desire to master a craft
6. The desire to be distinct

Four. Why do men become fanatics for their sports teams?

1. They want to belong to a gang, a primal expression of male bonding. Don’t doubt it. Rooting for “your team” is similar to gang affiliation.
2. Rooting for your team can be a form of power compensation for people who feel powerless in their real lives.
3. Rooting for a team can be a vicarious or fantasy existence for someone whose real world is sullied by boredom and a lack of purpose.
4. Rooting for a team can be a man’s escape from his domestic ineptitude and general feelings of worthlessness and irrelevance.
5. Rooting for a team can be about fashion. As Seinfeld says, “You’re rooting for clothes.”
6. Football can be a form of “sham warfare,” a sort of preparation for real war. See George Carlin video.

Five. What is an early example of sham warfare?

We see that English football originated over one thousand years ago and used a pig bladder. As an aside, my twin girls, 6 as of writing, like to play keep-away with me and this keep-away game, usually involving a blanket or a toy, has many parallels to football. I mention this because the game requires a certain amount of aggression and my twins, of course, are girls.

Six. What hypocrisy and delusion does JGs’ research reveal about spectator sports?

We pretend to hate violence when in fact we have an insatiable appetite for sadistic, cruel all-out violent spectacle. We always have since recorded history. See page 187.

Violence sells. Of all the Real Housewives shows, what’s number one? Atlanta. Why? It’s the most violent.

Looking at recorded history is a laundry list of shamefully violent entertainments:

Gladiator fights

Bull baiting

Bull fights

Lions vs. tigers vs. bears, etc.

Animal sadism

Public torture of humans

Public executions