Executive Protection Training: Machismo, Mirages, Myths and Income

A speedy world wide web search making use of the words, “Executive Protection Training” reveals a quantity of courses that are offered for about $250-$500 dollars a day. Add this to the air fare, meals and lodging and you have easily spent thousands of dollars to attend this form of education. The internet sites that offer you this coaching appear slick, with qualified rotating images of limousines, private jets, yachts, limos and guys with guns. It is testosterone heaven. But wait…..there is additional!

As you click by way of the tabs you see all the solutions that are offered: Individual Protection, Witness Protection, Dignitary Protection, Investigations of all varieties, and a multitude of courses that are presented from Handgun Training to High Threat Environments. And, if you register for a course now, you get a 10% discount on your subsequent outrageously priced course! With all of these wonderful photos and all these solutions that are supplied, they should be genuine and qualified, right? Buyer, beware! Many of these sites are much more like the Wizard of Oz than the Great Four for the reason that what lies behind the curtain is frequently a significant disappointment. But you wouldn’t know that from looking at the website.

What motivates a man or lady to give an unknown organization thousands of dollars to attend instruction for a position they will probably in no way have?


The Spanish and Portuguese roots of this word have to do with masculinity getting superior to femininity. Machismo, as normally interpreted now in the United States is defined as a “strong or exaggerated sense of masculinity stressing attributes such as physical courage, virility and aggressiveness an exaggerated sense of strength or toughness”. This definition would describe the stereotypical perception several individuals have of the Executive Protection Agent or Bodyguard. In reality, lots of of these types of personalities are drawn to the profession. There are other motives as well.

Author Bron B. Ingoldsby presented a paper at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Household Relations in 1985 entitled A Theory for the Improvement of Machismo. The abstract reads as follows: “With changes in sex function expectations in marriage, family members researchers have begun to examine the concept of machismo. Two traits dominant in the study of machismo are aggressiveness and hyper-sexuality. A biological model of machismo asserts that males everywhere have a tendency to be far more aggressive than females, a sex distinction which appears to have a genetic base. A contemporary theory of sociobiology gives a further explanation for macho behavior. According to this theory, considerably of animal, and possibly human, behavior is influenced by the drive for one’s genes to reproduce themselves. A usually accepted psychological theory views machismo as an expression of an inferiority complicated. Most analysis on machismo is restricted to the lower classes. Analysis from Mexico, Puerto Rico, England, and the United States suggests that reduce class males suffer from job insecurity and compensate for their feelings of inferiority by exaggerating their masculinity and by subordinating ladies. Other research point to distant father-son relationships as one particular issue major to feelings of inferiority and to the improvement of machismo. Girls could help machismo by being submissive, dependent, and passive. The combination of feeling inferior and acting superior is machismo, a trait that is repeated generation after generation. If men can be socialized toward male parental investment, the incidence of machismo could decline and the incidences of males feeling self-esteem and girls feeling equal to males may rise”.

From this pool of persons, we would count on to see males and females enlisting in professions like Executive Protection due to the fact they are driven by an inferiority complex and overcompensate by entering a dangerous profession, which in turn helps them feel superior. I can affirmatively assert this is true. The bulk of my business enterprise is coaching, and I have in all probability educated numerous thousand students at this point in my career. One particular of the courses I teach is Executive Safety & Vulnerability. Albeit a tiny percentage, I have met my fair share of overcompensating students trying to deal with some psychological inadequacy. Does the word, “wannabe” sound familiar?

Why do Boys and Girls Prefer Various Toys, is an report published in Psychology Today. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at LSE is credited. An excerpt from this write-up: “Throughout the planet, boys and girls favor to play with distinct kinds of toys. Boys generally like to play with vehicles and trucks, while girls ordinarily opt for to play with dolls. Why is this? A traditional sociological explanation is that boys and girls are socialized and encouraged to play with diverse sorts of toys by their parents, peers, and the “society.” Increasing 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 London stunned the scientific planet by showing that vervet monkeys showed the similar sex-typical toy preferences as humans. In an incredibly ingenious study, published in Evolution and Human Behavior, Alexander and Hines gave two stereotypically masculine toys (a ball and a police automobile), two stereotypically feminine toys (a soft doll and a cooking pot), and two neutral toys (a image book and a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. They then assessed the monkeys’ preference for each toy by measuring how substantially time they spent with each and every. Their information demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed drastically greater interest in the masculine toys, and the female vervet monkeys showed drastically greater interest in the feminine toys. The two sexes did not differ in their preference for the neutral toys.

In a forthcoming short article in Hormones and Behavior, Janice M. Hassett, Erin R. Siebert, and Kim Wallen, of Emory University, replicate the sex preferences in toys among members of another primate species (rhesus monkeys). Their study shows that, when offered a selection in between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (such as a wagon, a truck, and a automobile) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (such as Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Ann, and a koala bear hand puppet), male rhesus monkeys show robust and considerable preference for the masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for the feminine toys, but the difference in their preference is not statistically significant”.

This makes sense, due to the fact most of the attendees of Executive Protection Instruction are guys. It is genetic.

Peter Langman, Ph.D., is Clinical Director at the national children’s crisis charity KidsPeace and the author of Why Youngsters Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters. He wrote an post published in Psychology Today The Career Aspiration of Shooters. From that article: “The pattern of thwarted careers in law enforcement and/or the military can be discovered among serial killers and school shooters, as effectively as at least one spree killer. What significance is there to this pattern of aspiration and failure? First, the shooters’ interest in the military could have been their try to channel their fascination with weapons and violence into an acceptable outlet. Their profession aspirations could also have been motivated by what Dr. Katherine Newman calls “the failure of manhood.” For young men who had fragile identities, joining the military may perhaps have been noticed as a way of establishing masculine identities for themselves. Their failures to attain this aim may perhaps have had a devastating effect on them. Probably their armed rampages had been an attempt to show the globe just how capable they had been of working with weapons. raamatupidamise kursus may possibly have taken their rejections and failures as a individual assault on their masculinity, and therefore felt driven to demonstrate to the globe that they were strong men indeed”.

Leave a Comment