The core problem I have with this is it completely ignores context…and I believe context is key if you’re going to assess behavior and even more so if you’re going to prescribe how we should raise our children…or act as “modern men” or “modern women”.

Humans evolved in and survived a harsh environment and continue to do so. Our society, which we presume is a given, is in fact a thin veneer laid upon a shaky foundation, a foundation which is challenged with every natural disaster…in fact it melts away on every hike in the backcountry. Go to Alaska, walk out into the wilderness. How far do you go before you realize humans evolved to survive that, and that we can’t just wish the traits that allowed us to survive away now that some of us choose to live our entire lives in glass buildings.

Aggression has value for our species. The question we should always ask is whether it’s being used in the right context and in the right measure.

I’d support a movement that embraced our innate natures, that we are, in fact, driven by hormones like testosterone and estrogen, that these hormonal influences convey certain realities, and that if we want to build a society that can function effectively over the long haul we need to work with them rather than against them.

To me that means accepting that men have aggressive tendencies and working not to try and eradicate them or ignore them or suppress them but instead to teach context and control. When is aggression called for? When is it inappropriate? When it is called for how much is too much? Not enough?

Take “assertiveness training”. We can label aggression “assertiveness” if we like. It’s the same stuff in different measure in my mind. Being assertive is simply channeling anger/aggression in an controlled fashion to ensure your boundaries and rights are clear and well maintained.

Teach context. Teach control. Then I’ll listen.