This article from The Atlantic was originally published in 2013, the year the ban on women in combat was lifted. Since then, there has been some progress yet more must be gone to make gender integration a success in the US military. Part of this project requires that certain myths be challenged. The consistent argument is that women simply do not have the physical strength or fitness capacity to be effective combat soldiers. The question in regards to upper body strength becomes debated. The two opposing arguments are split between partisan lines between liberals and conservatives. Women in combat will certainly become a wedge issue just like abortion, immigration, and taxes. The extreme conservative argument is that women are too physically weak to be soldiers and have no place in the US military. The staunch liberal opposing view is that women are capable, but they do not acknowledge that biological and physiological differences can effect women’s performances in particular tasks. Elspeth Reeve clearly is not looking at the problem from a perspective of exercise physiology. The author then erroneously states ” the thing is, you don’t need much upper body strength to carry a man out of combat.” George Will ‘s assessment is equally oblivious : ” You’re a 6′ 4″, 240 pound Marine, You’re injured, and you need a Marine to carry you to safety, and the Marine next to you is a 5’ 4″ woman who weighs 115 pounds. It’s relevant .” The fact is there are women who are fit enough for the rigors of combat, but this does not mean every woman is. Physical fitness and technique are essential for enabling women to successfully help their fellow soldiers in combat situations.
Lifting requires the muscles of the upper body and motion from the legs. If a woman was to be carrying an injured soldier in a combat situation, then the added weight of the gear and armor should be included. So a woman carrying a person and gear would be a huge amount of weight. The average soldier can carry close to a total of 120 pounds. The armor provides a high level of protection, but it also makes them vulnerable to injury. Depending on the military occupational specialty weight can vary. Soldiers carry ammunition, communications equipment, rations, and various uniform related items. A machine gunner could have to carry up to a total 140 pounds.
It is simple for this woman to carry a man with out gear. The soldier above carrying some one would have to move both the weight of gear and the person.
This would require a certain level of upper body strength to both move items and save a person. The muscular system between men and women does not differ vastly. The cells and tissues are the same. The differences is related to distribution of strength in sections of the human body, composition, and the influence of endocrinology. The biggest disparity in body strength is in the upper body with women only having an estimated range of 25% to 55 % of male strength. Contrary to popular belief women do not have more lower body strength. Women can have close to an estimated 70% to 75 % lower body strength of men. Body composition plays a role in strength. Women have a higher fat percentage in comparison to muscle mass. Women who are even at a high physical fitness capacity retain more fat to a man who has a similar fitness level. Body composition is influenced by the endocrine system. The production of certain sex hormones will effect fitness. Testosterone allows for greater protein synthesis enabling greater muscular hypertrophy in men. Men weigh more and are bigger than women on average which contribute to higher levels of natural strength.
Even with training, men normally reach a higher physical fitness level. Women can experience muscular hypertrophy and can gain strength through weight training.
The upper body of men differs compared to women’s. Men have broader shoulders, which means that more muscle can be housed on it. Although it would seem that women would not be suited for highly physical or manual work, weight training does have an effect on their bodies. The factors that are important are both power and intensity. Power by definition is the ability to generate force in a short period of time. There is a power generation difference due to the biological and physiological factors related to sexual dimorphism. Men have more power due to larger muscle fibers and the difference in a particular type of fibers. Type II muscle fibers are more useful for generating large amounts of power. However, women have an advantage of more endurance based type I muscle fibers. The strength between male and female muscle fibers is equal yet the amount and type creates a difference in physical power. Muscle size is not a direct indication of strength. It depends on what type of training regimen is used. This partially explains why it is possible for a less muscular weightlifter to lift more than a bodybuilder. They are training for two different purposes. Knowing this about the muskuloskeletal system reveals certain aspects that should be noted for women entering combat positions. Women would have to increase their fitness level prior to entry to meet the physical demands. After passing those fitness tests, then a female recruit should closely examine which military occupational specialty they want to enter and continue to make improvements on their physical performance.
Exercising prior to basic training can help with meeting the vigorous physical demands of combat.
Every woman is certainly not the same. The woman of high fitness capacity or with an athletic background will not struggle as much compared to the average woman. This was best articulated by Steve Inskeep : ” there are surely individual women who could pick you or I up wounded and carry us off a battlefield.” His response to George Will in a discussion on ABC’s This Week was a rational answer. Will’s previous response did have merit : “But there are certain anatomical facts about upper body strength and stamina.” Biology cannot not be denied, yet there is one critical factor that is missed. Not every man is built like Rambo. Gorge Will’s scenario of the small woman unable to carry a large man could also be a small man carrying a bigger one. A man of 140 pounds would struggle to carry a 200 pound man in combat. His scenario does not acknowledge that there are men in the US population that would not make suitable soldiers. Steve Inskeep does not acknowledge that all men would not be qualified, yet highlights women considered unique or exceptional. The reasoning is based on subtle sexism that women are physically weak and too pusillanimous for combat jobs.
It would be obvious that the weaker man would struggle carrying the stronger and bigger man. Will argument seems to lack cogency, when stating why women should not be in combat. Based on that logic all men should not be drafted, because their fitness levels vary.
Women who are not serving in combat arms are still doing manual labor in the US military. Host Martha Raddatz mentioned on This Week that there are female combat medics who move large men all the time for medical evacuation. Women have in a sense seen combat since 2001 when America’s wars became more about fighting terrorist organizations and armed groups rather than nation-states. Slowly, frontlines are disappearing into a world that is a complete war zone. While army medics require the strength to put the injured on stretchers and aid in biomedical procedures. This is essential to troops that are wounded or fall victim to harm by shrapnel. Medical evacuations may not always happen from combat rather, injury inflicted by too much armor and gear on the body. Women therefore must build an immense amount of upper body strength to meet the demands of particular combat tasks.
Female combat medics require a level of strength to move the wounded. Their job is very pivotal to ensuring survival of soldiers.
Women must train with a certain level of intensity. This means how hard a person works out in a fitness program. Women require both strength training and resistance training which focuses on the upper body muscles. Explosive power training and weightlifting can increase women’s physical strength. Women’s response to training stimuli differs. studies have shown that women have increased growth hormone through weight training regimens, which explains why some women may be able to gain a significant amount of muscle regardless of lower levels of testosterone. This is only achieved with longer resistance training periods and lifting heavier weights. Growth hormone then responds to the exercise stimuli contributing to muscular hypertrophy in women. Men and women actually respond in similar ways to strength training. It only appears that men respond more to training stimuli, because they have more musculoskeletal mass to begin with. Women have lower natural strength and a lower fitness level without training. This means it is harder for women to reach a certain fitness level. Progressive overload is still effective yet other factors should be considered. Nutrition and genetics are critical to physical fitness capacity. Exercises like bench press, pull-ups, and bent-over rows are helpful at building the pectoralis major, biceps, and triceps. While it is clear that women can increase their muscular power, there is one element of fitness that may not be altered through training.
Assuming that a woman is carrying a wounded soldier, this would require some running if there is still fire being exchanged. The problem is that too much armor does slow down a soldier and hinders mobility to a degree. What would not be working in a female soldier’s favor is the difference in aerobic capacity. There is only slight difference in muscular strength of the lower body, but running requires the heart and lungs. Women’s smaller heart and lungs means that their running speed would be lower. The maximal oxygen consumption is higher in males. Women have a smaller stroke volume in comparison. Women are running with less hemoglobin. Hemoglobin’s role is designed to carry oxygen to various body tissues. This is especially important for the muscles. There also has to be a consideration for the biomechanics in relation to women’s running speed. Wider hips, shorter legs, and the quadriceps angle effect women’s total running speed.
Despite biological and physiological differences women can increase running speed.
Quadriceps angle, pelvis shape, heart and lung size are not altered through training. Hemoglobin levels are not significantly changed through training in the female body. Women can increase muscular strength, but increasing aerobic capacity would be more difficult in comparison. Speed is essential when attempting to move an injured soldier and strength just is not the only factor. Women anatomy also must be taken into account if combat integration is to be successful. Elite female athletes who compete in track and field use reliable sports bras to help with their running. Although breast size varies among women, women with a larger breast size may feel more discomfort during physical activity. The US military should provide sports bras to it female combat soldiers. This would help reduce discomfort and strain during physically demanding tasks. A smaller amount of upper body strength and a different anatomical structure on the chest contributes to make it more of a challenge of women extracting a harmed soldier.
Some women experience breast pain from intense running. A durable sports bra can prevent such discomfort.
Sports bras and armor designed to fit the female frame can improve women’s performance. Yet, it should be realized that some aspects of biology will not change in regards training stimuli. Running speed seems like one of the physical fitness indicators in which women would not close the gap. The problem with the liberal argument is that they ignore basic physiology. The opposing conservative view is based on a biological determinism, which masks subtle sexist convictions. Both of these are extreme distortions about women in combat and their physical capabilities. This is more complicated than previously thought.
Elspeth Reeve does explain that there is a method in which a soldier can be removed from the battlefield known as the fireman’s carry. This merely requires an individual slinging a person over their shoulders . The examples Reeve provides show that it can be done by women. The problem is that it does not show someone who is already on the floor or unconscious. There is a difference between lifting a weight and carrying a human body. A human body contains four limbs and combined with body armor would be more trouble to move. One must understand also, depending on the nature of the injury on the best way to carry a person. If it is a neck or spinal cord injury a stretcher would be required. When carrying the injured soldier one would have to be mindful not to exacerbate the area of the wound. The fire man’s carry would most likely not be as effective as the casualty drag. This still requires physical strength, but may not waste as much energy compared to the fireman’s carry.
It is easier to lift and carry a person when there is no armor or gear on the body. The solution is to have women practice with their armor and gear.
The fascinating aspect of this article is that it mentions the lift and carry fetish. To fans of physically strong women and the bodybuilding sports it is a much familiar topic. The techniques women use to lift men include the over the shoulder carry, the piggyback ride, cradle lift, and overhead lift. While such women are more than capable of lifting men over their shoulders, they are not the average women. There is a dramatic difference between the physical capacities of the average woman and the female athlete. This means making a draft would have to be conscious of this fact. This means if women were to be drafted they would need to have extensive fitness program to meet the demands of basic training or MOS. The goal of seeing a gender balance may not happen, but that does not mean the number of female combat soldiers cannot increase with recruitment efforts. Improving fitness levels and certain techniques prevents injury and attrition rates. The casualty drag the US military seems to prefer more now compared to the fireman’s carry.
There are women who are qualified for the physical demands of combat.Others may not be able to do so.
Men and women can certainly be trained to be combat soldiers. However, training is only a simulation of combat. The nature of warfare is unpredictable and erratic. It is very possible that well trained soldiers could lose wars depending on multiple factors. Poor strategy, political mismanagement, and undefined goals could mean defeat of an armed force. There tends to be the notion that opening combat positions to women would cause failure and a less effective fighting force. Such accusations are based either on trepidation that women just do not have the strength or stamina or sexist prejudice. Since 2013 women have been entering combat jobs and so far there has been little disruption. As long as physical fitness requirements are not made to make it easier for women in particular, women fighting in the US military will be successful. This is why the Marine physical fitness standards should not be different for females.
There are several conclusions that can be made based on basic biology and anatomy. Women will struggle to reach a higher fitness level. This means they must embark on an exercise regimen prior to basic training. Depending on the military occupational specialty women should focus on the fitness standards and train specifically for that. There should not be the expectation that there will be equal numbers across the military. Although the number of women in the military has increased, it is still lower compared to the number of men. There are reasons for the difference in numbers of females active in the US military. One reason is that many women just may not have the strength or endurance for physically demanding occupations. Women may not be recruited or encourage to join in comparison to men.
There are women who are capable of combat. Yet, the vast majority of the male and female population of the US may lack the physical fitness required, if there was a need for a draft. Most would either require a weight management program (Fit Recruits Hard To Find ).
Personal choice also plays a role. A military career could just be something many American women are not interested in. These factors contribute to the gender imbalance in the US military. Seeing as the ban was only lifted in 2013, progress will take time. Over the next few decades women may make progress in the air force, navy, and army. The Navy SEALS may not see many female combat soldiers anytime soon. Such an elite fighting force has high drop out rates among men. The question of the selective service must be addressed. If women want true equality, they should accept being required to register for the selective service. Men do not have much of a choice and equality does not mean some privileges when the opportunity suits you. Doing this will challenge the detractors. There are still many who underestimate women’s ability, but any rational observer can see that as long as women meet the qualifications no problems will arise. The only issue is men who hate the presence of women in jobs they believe should be male only. George Will and his conservative advocates cannot accept the world and the US is changing. The roles of women have changed dramatically, which seems to alarm the traditional socially conservative Republicans. Women are going to continue to serve in combat positions and have larger roles in the military in the future. How men adjust to this change is yet to be known. As long as women are physically capable to handle the demands, there is no reason to exclude women from combat.
Shari Pendleton is best known as Blaze from the American Gladiators tv show and was a former bodybuilder. She was an active track and field athlete prior to her bodybuilding career and her American Gladiators persona.Besides being a bodybuilder, she was a track and field athlete. Born in Iceland in 1963, Shari moved to the US in her youth living in Los Angeles. There she began to show her athletic talents in childhood. At the age of twelve she ran on a track team known as the West Vernon Jets. Early on Shari enjoyed the thrill of competition. She liked the fact she was the fastest girl on her team. Later she was able to work her way up to 200 meter and 400 meter events. Shari Pendleton continued to compete in track in high school winning city championships. Her discovery of weight training came at the age of sixteen. Although she realized it could aid her athletic performance, her coaches admonished her about such training. This was such a ludicrous warning, because weight training did the opposite. Shari noticed improvements.
At this point it was only inevitable that she would gravitate to bodybuilding competition. She was competing in bodybuilding from 1984 to 1989. Shari’s first contest was the ABBC Natural International Championships. Her best win was in the 1988 ABBC Natural International. Her bodybuilding was being juggled with being a hurdler, javelin thrower, and tack athlete. This was very demanding which explains why she did not continue bodybuilding after 1989. Shari had her aspirations set on athletic competition in the Olympics. When she was a student at the University of Nebraska, Shari continued to have outstanding athletic performance. The triple jump she struggled with, not having much success. After obtaining her degree she when on to train under Bob Kersee. The UCLA Track Club was known to produce top track and field athletes during the 1980s. Shari Pendleton had the dream of competing in the 1988 Seoul Olympics. A pulled hamstring stopped her from making the US team. Her fortunes were reversed, when she was able to represent the United States as a javelin thrower in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics. The sprinting competition was at a different level, but she had a better chance at success as a javelin thrower.
Doing these multiple sports demonstrated she had a lot of talent. Physically she was very impressive. Standing at 5ft 8in and a weight of 145 lbs in competition ( with 160 lbs off season) Shari was very statuesque. She world be a regular cast member of the American Gladiators shoe from 1989 to 1992. This is the show which made her familiar with the mainstream audiences, who may not have been followers of bodybuilding. During the time it was rare to see a muscular woman being celebrated by a mainstream audience on a regular basis outside the fitness subculture. Her departure was rumored due to the fact she married a man from a imitation show Knights and Warriors. It was thought that producers then terminated her employment based on this. Pendleton has never confirmed this, so it remains unsubstantiated. Sculpting her physique took a certain method. According to Shari she would use more free weight rather than machines. Although there has not been official studies to prove which one is the most effective, it seemed to work for her. What she did was also more powerlifting exercises, which she credited for making her muscles develop bigger and stronger. Shari Pendleton also made other television appearances in mostly minor roles. She appeared in the TV series Renegade. Shari also had a small part in the 1995 film Alien Within .Many fans wished she would have competed longer in bodybuilding, but the positive side was that she was a fun American Gladiator to watch on TV. Shari Pendleton later got married and started a family.
Another great athlete was lost. Arminda Latia Del Riviero was a Canadian bodybuilder who competed in the 1990s. When she retired from competition she continued to be active in fitness being a personal trainer. The video above features Arminda posing in the Jan Tana Classic as a IFBB professional bodybuilder. She according to some sources died of a heart attack. She was only 53 years old. Femuscleblog will certainly miss this talented athlete and promoter of the sport.
Mandy Blank has unfortunately passed away at the age of 42 . Female bodybuilding fans remember her best as a fitness model of the 1990s. During the 2000s she relocated to California and became a personal trainer. Fans and fitness enthusiasts will certainly miss this athlete that brought energy and notoriety to the bodybuilding sports.
Science is not an entirely unbiased enterprise. Like any other form of academic subject it can be prone to error. While simple mistakes are understandable, pseudoscience is not. Then there is the tendency of news outlets and various media to misinterpret information or simply spread falsehoods. If there was a correlation between political affiliation and physical strength it should show in voting patterns. Such a phenomenon may not even be based on biology rather, the environments in which people are raised.Convictions and political positions are molded by culture, personal experiences, and the communities in which people live. Sometimes political beliefs are formed by the era and the zietgiest held by the people. This study was published by Physiological Science . It was called “The Ancestral Logic of Politics.” The study made the assertion that upper body strength regulates assertion in terms of economic self interest and wealth distribution. Originally published in 2013, the study echoes psychological pseudoscience of the 20th century. There seems to be at least some influence of constitutional psychology present in this peer reviewed work. However, a biological basis for behavior cannot be ignored. It is clear that human evolutionary history has an impact on behavior and the function of society. Science is not a completely unbiased or error free enterprise. This is why any theory must be put through the scientific method to prove it to be fact. Politics and economics go far beyond biology and evolution.
Upper body strength was pivotal to early hominids for the sake of fighting ability. The reason for sexual dimorphism was that it allowed males to compete with one another for mates. Theoretically, the largest hominids would have greater access to females and resources. The study notes that physical strength to a degree is not as relevant to advancing in society. Although this study focused on men, women should have been examined more. If physical strength plays a factor in political and economic ideology this pattern should be present in women. Logically, one would assume that women, who have less physical strength over all would them be more in favor of redistribution of wealth. What the study found was that men of higher socioeconomic status with higher upper body strength favored their privileged status. Men of lower socioeconomic status were favored redistribution. The study indicated suggested that political decision making formed on the basis of evolutionary psychology. This was done to serve the needs of small scale groups. The problem is that the study only relies on men from the US, Argentina, and Denmark. Compared to the 193 countries that exist in the world, this sample may be too small to make such a statement. If these claims were true such political decision making would be present in Asia and Africa. Three countries is simply not enough to make definite statements.
There has to be a sociological reason for why this does not work the same for women. It would be erroneous to say what the men and women’s politics are based on their physical strength.
The study then mentions asymmetric war of attrition model of behavioral ecology. Fighting ability and strength were used to gain or regulate the decision making process prior to the rise of advanced human civilization. What is seen in vertebrate species is that greater fighting ability means greater access to resources. Weaker animals are more willing to cede resources they cannot effectively defend. Humanity is different in the fact that cooperation was a pivotal part of its survival. This has relevance to human aggression. Women have been shown to be less aggressive in terms of direct physical confrontation. Through evolutionary history women had less to gain from physical confrontation compared to men. This may explain why women did not gain equal amounts of upper body strength as men, because it was an evolutionary trait that did not provide women an advantage. Upper body strength as well as aggression was found to play a role in decision making regarding conflict. This may partially explain why there is war and violence. The questions of leadership,economics, and politics have too many factors to be organized in a data chart, so this is why the study just discussed wealth and its distribution.
During the course of human biological evolution, female fighting ability was not as essential as a man’s. This theory may explain that particular element of sexual dimorphism.
The experimental method also is critical. Although it cannot be ignored that there are biological basis for behavior, sociological factors cannot be discarded either. There also could have been a problems with measurement for the experiment.
The measurement of upper body strength should be precise. What the experiment did was measure the circumference of the bicep of the dominant arm of subjects when flexed. This according to one study cited is a predictor of fighting ability and upper body strength. Measuring biceps does not give a precise measure of upper body strength. Hand grip measures have been used, but that may not be as precise either. The best measure would be to see how much each individual can bench press. Simply having large muscles does not automatically mean a person is stronger. It is related to the distribution of type II fast twitch muscle fibers. These muscle fibers are better suited for physical acts that require explosive power. It is possible a person with bigger muscles may not be as strong as a person with less depending on their exercise regimen.
It is obvious who has the bigger biceps. Just looking at a person’s body measurement and strength level would produce anything about economic and political convictions.
Making subjects do weight lifting exercise would give a better measure of upper body strength. This experimental model used was survey. It should be assumed that the answers given were honest ones, but sometimes that is not always the case. This problem also occurs in polling. One question that was not answered is if upper body strength is a predictor of economic or political views, would these change if a person increases their upper body strength? If this theory was credible, it would try an experiment in which it would document the subject’s political views prior to embarking on a strength building regimen. Then they should be observed if their political and economic views change based on changes to fitness level. This seems to be a question based in social science rather than biology. The study reached the conclusion that “as predicted, for men of high SES, the correlation between strength and support for redistribution was negative, whereas for men of low SES, the correlation was positive.” The results for women were completely different : ” regarding female subjects, nowhere was the interaction of upper-body strength and SES on support for economic redistribution statistically significant—Argentina: F(1, 87) = 1.38, p = .24; United States: F(1, 268) = 0.39, p = .54; Denmark: F(1, 366) = 0.12, p = .73 (two-tailed ps).” If this is the case more women should be more liberal in terms of economic and social equality. Yet, there are women who favor conservatism and neoliberal capitalism.
Amy Holmes and Michelle Malkin are notable female conservatives active in various media outlets and political circles. The stronger women in these picture have more upper body strength, but this does not predict their political and economic views.
Business Insider accurately explained that the results could be easily misinterpreted. The study explained further : “a key prediction derived from animal-conflict theory: Individuals with greater fighting ability (here, upper-body strength) should seek larger shares of contested resources. ” Then it makes the conclusion that “upper-body strength in modern adult men influences their willingness to bargain in their own self-interest over income and wealth redistribution.” Their seems to be an something that is missed here. It may be that people who see themselves or are more powerful are willing to bargain more. Such behavior merely means that people who are more powerful are willing to bully people in a weaker position. These findings mean that a ancient male behavior may be incompatible with democracy. This study has its limitations, but there is a major flaw. It may be reviving constitutional psychology.
Constitutional psychology was a theory that personality correlates to body type. The somatotypes were developed by William Sheldon in the 20th century. Looking at this study from 2013, one would reach the conclusion the men of higher socioeconomic status and more upper body strength would be more aggressive. Measuring biceps would not be the best why to figure out whether or not people favor redistribution. Pseudoscience has never disappeared, rather is revived during certain periods. It is unfortunate that media and websites were so ready to use the study to suit their political position. This study is based on a theory of animal conflict and asymmetric war of attrition model. While some elements may be credible it should be remembered that political and social systems of humanity are complex. There are historical and sciobiological reasons why men have higher aggression levels. Convictions and philosophy are molded by the culture and society in which people live. Aggression in men was seen as a way to protect states from other conquers, which is why men were the ones that went off to war. The industrial revolution made mass production possible, which allowed societies to produce commodities without constant invasion and conquest. The negative consequence of that was that consumer culture caused the growth of imperialism to meet the demands of the public desire for particular resources. The study does not consider these factor and almost suggest that rational choice theory should not be considered as large of a factor. Not considering these factors seems to suggest the dated and disproved constitutional psychology has some validity.
What needs to be understood about America in particular in terms of economics, is that there still is faith in a supply-side system. Wealth redistribution a large portion of Americans equate to socialism, which they assume is an awful political ideology. What they confuse it for is totalitarian stalinist communism, which many Marxists reject as a degeneration of revolutionary ideals. There are nations that already have social democratic systems such as Sweden, Norway, and Finland. There American citizens who believe they can pull themselves up from the boot straps and become wealthy. This dream has been more of a fantasy with growing gaps between the rich and poor. The study showed that the stronger the person was the more they are likely to favor their own economic self interest. As Business Insider articulated ” stronger men had stronger opinions about politics.” The problem with rational choice theory is that it does not really explain why working class whites favor a Republican Party that does more for the rich. This is partly fueled by racism, xenophobia, and the economic impact of globalization. This is why Donald Trump was successful was that he promotes a message of economic nationalism, while simultaneous playing on white working class race prejudice. The upper class gentry favors him mainly do to the fact taxes will be reduced for them and regulations will be curtailed. Supply-side economics place most of the financial burden on the poor and middle class. The welfare state is demonized as being the cause of America’s debt and deficit. This myth has become accepted, but the real cause is America’s growing military budget. Maintaining a global presence and military force has resulted in a higher federal income tax and funds that the US cannot pay back. Economic philosophy is not shaped by upper body strength, it has to do with region, community, politics, and culture. The American dream myth has a hold on both liberal and conservative voters and politicians. Many still embrace the neoliberal capitalist system even though it is failing.
Other variables could have influenced this study. Family structure influences political and economic ideology. This is the earliest form of political socialization. School also has an impact on an individual’s developing belief system. Even in democratic societies, their is a level of indoctrination in public schools. Children in elementary school are encourage to recite the pledge of allegiance and US history is emphasized over other social sciences. Community pressure and peer groups also influence political beliefs. There is also a divide among regions in the US. The US south has more of a conservative base due to the historical circumstances of the Civil War and the opposition to the federal government. Taking a look at Argentina, it was a country once ruled by a military junta. Under Operation Condor the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance unleashed a wave of state terrorism against leftists or anyone who was opposing the government. It should be no surprise that right-wing views still persist. Denmark through a majority of its history was a monarchy, with a period in which counts ruled. Liberal politics did not come to the country until the 19th century and its modern welfare state did not emerge until the early 20th century. Events and peer groups can influence pubic opinion. The three nations surveyed have different histories, which should be considered. It seems the study may demonstrate something else rather than what it was attempting to prove. Men are constantly competing for status, which has basis in ancestral behaviors from the human evolutionary past. Sexual dimorphism enabled men to be fighters for resources and seeing as physical confrontation no longer determines that in modern society, it changed form. These are merely theories in psychology and biology in which there is not enough data to state as fact. This topic requires more experimentation and research.