Study Says 2 In 5 Bosses Lie

Freshly Exhumed writes to tell us about a Florida State University study of 700 employees indicating that nearly two of five bosses don't keep their word. The study will be published later this year. From the article: "The abusive boss has been well documented in movies ('Nine to Five'), television (Fox's 'My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss') and even the Internet. 'They say that employees don't leave their job or company, they leave their boss. We wanted to see if this is, in fact, true,' said Wayne Hochwarter, an associate professor of management in FSU's College of Business."

Comments

grievance committees

[udderly]

FTA: Finally, he said, "No abuse should be taken lightly, especially in situations where it becomes a criminal act (for example, physical violence, harassment or discrimination). The employee needs to know where help can be found, whether it is internal (i.e., the company's grievance committee) or external (i.e., formal representation or emergency services)."

In most of the companies that I've worked for, the "grievance committee" is merely a shill for management interests.

Re:grievance committees

[ZonkerWilliam]

Im curious, has anyone been verbally or physically abused by a manager or supervisor? I know I have had terrible managers in the past, some almost could be considered abusive. Just wondered how wide spread it was.

Re:grievance committees

[the_rev_matt]

I worked for a manager whose style would best be described as "scream, berate, humiliate, threaten". I generally threw up every morning before heading in to work because of the stress. This was during the early 90's recesssion, so finding another comparable paying job (only slightly above minimum wage) wasn't an option.

Re:grievance committees

[tompaulco]

I had a boss that was verbally abusive. Sometimes he would yell, but mostly he would just quietly berate you. After a couple of years of working for him he had convinced me that I was of no worth to any other company and that I was lucky to have the job.
I liken it to Saruman's hold on King Theoden. I was lucky to see my way through what almost seemed like a spell he had cast on me and my coworkers. I was the third to leave, and in the end 2/3 of the company quit within a space of about 3 months.

Re:grievance committees

[smilindog2000]

Yeah, I think they're focusing on the wrong kind of lying...

In my experience, physical abuse is rare, and emotional abuse is typically somewhat self-inflicted (if your boss doesn't like your work, don't make yourself crazy... just get a new boss).

However, I find lying to some degree is far higher than 2/5. Stock options are the typical one. When you ask "How many shares are outstanding?", the typical response is "Try to imagine that each share is $10." They'll say that even when the current selling price is $0.10. Some bosses also distort information badly, if not down-right lying, to benefit themselves. If you bust your buns making the whole project succeed, it's quite likely your boss will get a bonus or stock options, and you'll get nothing.

In the end, you've got to fend for yourself, while forming a positive relationship with your boss, even though he doesn't always tell you the whole story.

Re:grievance committees

[PPH]

Never by a manager, but we did have an engineer on a team who thought he was tough sh*t and made threats to that effect.

I don't look like much, but one day I brought one of my grip exercisers to a meeting. During the meeting (while this bozo was shooting his mouth off), I just sat there quietly, squeezing the handle, but I made sure it was visible to everyone. When the meeting let out, I intentionally left it lying on the table. A few witnesses told me that this guy picked it up and nearly busted his gut trying (unsuccessfully) to move it. After that, he quieted down quite a bit.

Re:grievance committees

[BluedemonX]

Yeah, but karma is a bitch.

I worked somewhere where the managment took advantage of the REALLY terrible job market to basically say "this will be done ON our unrealistic schedule, without listening to your suggestions, or you can all find jobs elsewhere" (which they knew didn't exist). "If it takes weekends, evenings, it will get done, or you can find another job."

Halfway through the project, at a critical juncture, when they'd sign contracts that committed the company to delivery, an employee cracked and shouted at someone else. They fired him on the spot. Half the team looked at the job market, realised it had since become VERY VERY good, and more than half the team walked out.

Needless to say, managment were on the chopping block in a big way when the promised delivery date rolled around and there was no product. The businesses who had signed big deals for the project were demanding major price reductions or cancelling.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch.

Re:grievance committees

[lawpoop]

I had a manager when I worked at a gas station who was verbally abusive. It wasn't a matter of volume; it was the tone. It was like he was hocking venom at you or flicking daggers.

"I can't believe this shit..." Made you feel like you were a three-year-old. I was 18 at the time and I didn't know how to mentally disengage from him. I was the best employee ( the other long-term employees were adults with no education and just didn't care at all ). I did a good job; he told me I was his best employee. I wanted to do good, but when I screwed up, however minor, he would berate me like he did the others that worked there. I just took it like a bitch; while the other folks would get in heated arguments. I felt bad about myself. I had all kinds of stress responses -- headaches, muscle aches, etc. I developed GIRD (gastro-intestinal reflux disease) and the doctor prescribed me Nexium -- at 18 years old. So much for western medicine. The real answer was to leave the mentally and emotionally unhealthy environment. Which I did.

I think the reason that there is so much anti-depressant use these days is because, as our economy slowly swirls the drain, we have no mental health care industry to take care of people dealing with the fallout of not having enough resources to provide for themselves and their families. Having more opportunities to talk about our feelings would be good, but I think the real answer is more power to the individual in the workplace.

In pursuing my anthropology degree in college, we watched a video of a native healer in Uganda or somewhere. His patient was having general sickness such as tiredness, upset stomach, etc. The healer guy went into his trance and danced around wildly. The healer diagnosed the problem being with the man's father-in-law or something like that, and within minutes, the father-in-law was in the room, and they were having it out -- emotionally airing their grievances, arguing, and coming to a new agreement, all mediated by this crazy medicine man. The whole village was gathered around, watching, and I have no doubt that they would help enforce the new agreement.

It would be great if I could have sat down with my then-manager and explained what he was doing wrong. If he could learn to manage by also being nice. But no, my doctor had no authority to call him into the office, I had no authority as a kid to question how "The Real World" works, and, being the best manager in the district, the oil company had no incentive in getting him to change his ways. He continued emotionally abusing people, perpetuating burn-out and turnover. So the abusive, destructive environment continued.

In the US, do whatever BS management tells you or get fired. The rest of the department has been outsourced, so you have to do the jobs of 3 people. With unions on the wane, it is just a lowly individual against a vast corporation. The working class had their jobs outsourced to the 3rd world, and now it is happening to white collar jobs. All the while the media tells us that we can mitigate our unhappiness with new cars, alcohol, and bling. Terrorists attack us on our own soil, we are entering an endless war against a nebulous enemy called "Terror" and Bush says the best thing we can do is go shopping.

I realize a lot of slashdotters are well-educated and many of them have decent jobs. It seems to me that this is a child-like view of "Things are going well for me; if anyone else is having a problem, they are just not working hard enough." Well, the $#i+ seems to be hitting the fan with outsourcing and now the white-collar middle class is beginning to feel the effects of limitless corporate power. If left unchecked it will lead to virtual slavery and serfdom.

Re:grievance committees

[Lord_Dweomer]

What can be a bigger problem is what I see happening to a lot of people who just graduated and are entering the professional world for the first time. You come out of school cocky, but still aware that you don't know a lot at all, but then they have a boss who basically makes them feel like they don't know anything about their chosen profession and kills their confidence, which in turn leads to more mistakes etc.

The reason this is such a problem is while a seasoned professional who runs into a bad boss can still walk out of there knowing deep down "its a bad boss, I know my shit, I'm good at what I do even if he doesn't think so" whereas a recent graduate might think "wow, maybe I chose the wrong career path, spent all that money for nothing..." and end up working at Starbucks because they no longer have confidence in their abilities.

Re:grievance committees

[BewireNomali]

Re: fending for yourself. You're exactly right.

I consult with small and mid-cap investment firms in the NYC area - evaluating media opportunities. In my capacity as a consultant I see how many bosses deal with employees and I am grateful and humbled that I have the opportunity to build a business the way I do, where I mostly report to myself.

One of my clients - head of a small sized hedge fund has two analysts that report directly to him. Both are Ivy educated, under 30, and scared out of their mind at this man.

Because I spend a significant amount of time with him out of the office - I have a true gauge for the kind of man that he is. This is what he told me: His hires are based on psychological profiles. He hires overachieving young men with father issues (this guy strikes kind of a very photogenic prototype father figure - I've heard many an employee comment on how great a father he'd make). He uses this ammunition to twist these guys into knots - competing with one another, betraying one another for "fatherly" favor... working ungodly hours to one-up one's "sibling" - setting the two in diametric opposition. I asked him why he did it - he said that fear lasts longer than love. He also said, in the NY finance market, there are plenty of opportunities for well educated finance guys - in order to retain talent (other than with significant financial compensation) one has to get the employee so emotionally invested in the task at hand, to the struggle the firm is trying to overcome, make it so the firm's fight becomes personal. These guys hate each other and do everything they can to outwit one another, and to this boss, it's a big joke. It's what he does.

I've seen other bosses develop a method of manipulating underlings that utilizes a code. They run it in meetings - wide open. One manager might make a reference to having a headache - and the other manager replies that they are out of brand X of medicine for headaches, but brand Y seems that it would be most effective in this situation (the situation being a particular impasse with the team). They gauge situations and resolve them by manipulating workers in real time using pre-established "plays" or social strategies - I've watched employees react like puppets, on cue.

Women in the workplace are controlled in a similar way - but using aesthetics and attractiveness as the meter. Even women who profess to not be affected by it become embittered when the boss champions the hot chick, so the other women work doubly hard to prove their worth on different merits. Checkmate, boss wins. I've seen the hot chick go from belle of the ball to also ran when a new round of hiring brings in younger, hotter eye candy.

The best thing an employee can do in my experience is NOT INTERNALIZE the firm's business, and be aware that almost EVERY ACTION by a boss is done to manipulate you to HIS ENDS. Objectivity goes a great way. FEND FOR YOURSELF and realize that your skills and experience determine your market value - and realize that a bosses' power relies totally on the self-sacrifice of those under him.

Re:grievance committees

[smilindog2000]

Holly cow, that's harsh!

I make a poor manager, so I let others run the small business I founded. However, I do recruit guys and have a plan for getting the most out of our employees... I try to do it above-board, and let them know about my tricks during the interview.

In short, I try to hire super-bright guys right out of school, with salaries slightly lower than competing offers. I also explain that I expect them to work like heck, and eventually quit when other companies offer them salaries I can't match. In return, I promise they will have a chance to learn everything I know about EDA, and instead of fixing bugs in someone else's code for a living, they'll have a chance to make a major contribution. I tell them they'll have a chance to see their efforts directly help grow the company. I buy them laptops so they have a chance to work around the clock, both at home and at work.

In Silicon Valley, this strategy worked very well. It works fairly well in NC, but the laptops don't work out. Around here, people just don't seem to take work home with them. Partly, I blame the favorable ratio of girls-to-guys here relative to Silicon Valley, and the stronger focus on families. It's also just the culture. I also have difficulty getting the guys here emotionally committed the way that they do in Silicon Valley, which makes a big difference. I moved here partly figuring that since salaries are 25% lower, I could start the company with less capital. That was wrong... the guys in Silicon Valley make up for their pay with 25% more work.

I also have another way of motivating a programmer. If I look over their shoulder, and sneer at some code that wasn't done quite right, I find that's much more effective at getting them fired-up and coding right than trying to directly teach them how to do it right in the first place. Their own code is very personal to them, and they'll work like heck to make it meet my standards, but no one likes to simply be lectured about how to write code in the first place, especially if they're very bright and use to writing better code than their teachers.

Re:grievance committees

[Lord Ender]

I had a boss that was verbally abusive. Sometimes he would yell, but mostly he would just quietly berate you. After a couple of years of working for him he had convinced me that I was of no worth to any other company and that I was lucky to have the job.

Did your manager also have a feathered hat, wear a long, purple fur coat, and carry a cane?

Re:grievance committees

[Intron]

Unions seem to work pretty well for doctors and lawyers. They prevent untrained people from practicing, require exams, and prevent abuses. They just don't call them unions.

OTOH anyone can use the title Software Engineer, no training level is required, no exams, and no method of removing incompetents (other than promotion to management, of course).

Re:grievance committees

[lawpoop]

I totally agree with you about what you said about job skills, valuing yourself, and putting your own interests first.

However, while the economy as a whole is improving, only a small percentage are seeing a benefit. The middle class is shrinking and the jobs that are being created are low-paying jobs without benefits, and they are replacing high-paying union jobs with benefits. Bankruptcies are at an all-time high. It's not just people buying flat-screen TVs and 16" rims, but families paying for cars to get to work, housing, and their children's school.

When the middle class shrinks, most people go into poverty, while a few become wealthy. I fear the US might look like most South American countries in 50 years, with a dozen or so families owning most of the country while most everyone else lives in near poverty.

I know there are problems with unions, and as a young person, a lot of my friends who have had union jobs have complained that it allows slackers to slack. But, I view them as a necessary evil, like government, as a check and balance against corporate power. Business people had slaves and serfs 150 years ago; there's nothing special about today that would stop them from instituting slavery again if it were possible. Perhaps one solution to have competition between unions in a workplace.

correction

[Bastard of Subhumani]

More like 2 in 5 knowingly lie.

Re:correction

[19thNervousBreakdown]

You're going to take somebody's overly general and comically exaggerated statement that had nothing to do with you in particular as a personal insult, but not what I said?

Man, I don't even know what to say. Thanks, I guess :P You guys' dedication to avoiding any sort of introspection is just amazing.

Boss == work??

[denebian devil]

"They say that employees don't leave their job or company, they leave their boss."

I think that's true to a point. In many cases, the environment at a company is colored by the behavior and the policies of the boss (or bosses). So it may be too simplistic to say that the boss is entirely to blame, but they can be responsible for things about a company that don't at first glance appear to be directly their fault.

Re:Boss == work??

[lazlo]

The flip side of this study is also true. In the last 15 years, I've worked for 9 different companies. I've had 2 bosses. I've had many of the same co-workers.

Loyalty is to people, not organizations.

Re:Boss == work??

[HappySqurriel]

From what I have found, the best bosses are usually those which act as advocates for the employees benieth them. This means that your boss will act in your best interests at all times; there are lots of benefits to the company from this in that Employees are usually happier, more productive, take less sick days and stay around longer. Someone who is deceptive is usually attempting to protect themselves and is typically not acting in the best interests of anyone else; whether they lie to others (taking credit for your work) or lie to you (about upcomming work) they are not looking out for you.

As an example of how a boss can act as an avocate for you, I have worked in a company where we ended up doing (paid) overtime through November and into mid December in order to complete a project on time. My boss at the time worked it out with HR for everyone to recieve extra vacation time in order for everyone to have the week off between Christmas and New Years; it was a small gesture, but the additional 2 (or 3, I can't remember) days off made everyone happier and more refreshed when we came back and most people felt far better towards the company for giving them the time off. I'm not positive, but I suspect the extra days off probably prevented sick days from being taken in January through March because most people didn't become over tired.

Great news!

[Weston O'Reilly]

3 out of 5 bosses DON'T lie! That should melt a few ice cold cynical hearts out there.

Re:Great news!

[LittleGuy]

Not so fast.

That means 3 our of 5 bosses lie about lying.

Oh really?

[Azathfeld]

Studies show that 100% of my employees are mouthy SOBs who don't know what side their bread is buttered on. Lie at work? Abusive relationship? You shouldn't have talked, kids; now you'll really know what an abusive boss is like!

Control subjects?

[PurifyYourMind]

How often do non-bosses lie?

Re:Control subjects?

[extern_void]

50% less.
When they lie more often, they are promoted.

Re:Perhaps a more universal truth ...

[Amiga Trombone]

Where do people think that boss's come from? Hell.

Truer words were never spoken...

The other 3...

[onion2k]

The other 3 lied in the survey.

And now I add some more text, ruining the joke, because the lameness filter has no sense of humour.

In other news *people* lie.

[nick_davison]

• Thirty-one percent of respondents reported that their employee gave them the "silent treatment" in the past year.
• Thirty-seven percent reported that their employee failed to give credit when due.
• Thirty-nine percent noted that their employee failed to keep promises.
• Twenty-seven percent noted that their employee made negative comments about them to other employees or managers.
• Twenty-four percent reported that their employee invaded their privacy.
• Twenty-three percent indicated that their employee blames others to cover up mistakes or to minimize embarrassment.

The truth is, we're all like that.

I'm pretty certain everyone has experienced a boss not give them credit where it's due - and I'm pertty certain, whether we want to admit it or even recognize it ourselves, others have complained about us doing exactly the same.

Bosses fail to keep promises? And no employee has ever failed to deliver a project they swore they'd deliver? They've never cut corners on something they promised would be thorough?

Bosses make negative comments to other colleagues? How dare they? Don't they realize that no employee has ever bitched about the boss?

The sad truth is: we all do things that people consider negative. It's not a boss quirk, it's not an employee quirk, it's a human quirk.

Then again, it's always easier to judge others than look at ourselves.

Re:Perhaps a more universal truth ...

[0racle]

Where do people think that boss's come from?

They used to be normal people, just these people lied to get ahead.

Decontructing the Headline

[susano_otter]

Study says most bosses honest.

Re:Decontructing the Headline

[bwalling]

Study says most bosses honest.

Nice way to lose some useful data in the translation. Do you work in Marketing?

Well documented

[MECC]

FTFA:"The abusive boss has been well documented in movies"

Well documented in the ... movies?! ...

How about also well documented in Mad Magazine...

Re:Not very scientific

[gEvil (beta)]

If we assume that the average boss has an average of ten grunts...

Ditzy secretary: "I've never had a boss last that long."

I Believe This

[broward]

The 40% figure is close to my own experience since the Dotcom Crash. I don't classify it as "lying", though, but as "deceit". And I've learned to be far more critical in evaluating new job positions. My latest experiences in December -

http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme?entry =dicey_projects

competant HR departments? Where?

[HornWumpus]

Never seen ONE.

They're the ones who hire the assholes in the first place.

A much better bet is a small company where the big cheese is the HR department. That way you only have one potential asshole to worry about.

Colonels better than generals

[Flying pig]

This may not be true of all military groupings, but I think you have hit an interesting nail on the head. People who rise to colonel or the equivalent may well have left the forces after a last command posting. They have been running an organisation. They are aware of practicalities. They have all kinds of people working for them, from ambitious junior officers down to specialists counting the days till they leave and translate their skills into civilian employment. The classical colonel-level briefing is "Boys, we've been dropped in the shit again, let's see how we're going to get out."

Generals, on the other hand, deal with people in the abstract. If they address the workforce, it is to issue a few windy generalities about loyalty,patriotism and team spirit like the guy you describe. And, a terrible downer, they have to talk to politicians, which would make anybody cynical about human nature.

Colonels should be allowed to transfer their management expertise to civilian life. They are, in my experience, often remarkably reasonable and open minded. Generals should be allowed to retire with honours. (OK, there are rare exceptions like Eisenhower.) The Roman Empire started to go into the shit big time when retired generals started to become emperors, and I see no reason why the same should not be true of companies.

Re:Culture of abuse = $$$

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Only when Microsoft started hiring more women and minorities did things change to a large degree. Of course, Microsoft's productivity also took a hit right around that time too.

So, what am I saying? Decide that for yourself.

You're a misogynistic racist who has no idea how to motivate workers? Hey, if you're also a habitual drunk, you win a prize!

Re:Not very scientific

[asuffield]

Personally, I believe if a company rewards people who have strong social skills, a decent moral backing, and adequate technical skills they're probably going to have the best chance at having good management.

I would say that a company which thinks "management" is a promotion from "non-management" has no chance at having good management *or* good workers. Selecting your management via some kind of reward process is a fundamentally flawed concept - the skills required are entirely different. You should select your management as part of the hiring process. While people can conceivably change into or out of the management roles, this should be seen as a "sideways" move in the organisation, like any other change of deparments - neither promotion nor demotion.

Sadly, very few companies work this way. One notable company that does is IBM - and their management staff is appreciably better than average, as most workers there will attest. That's not to say that getting this right solves all problems, but it almost certainly does help significantly.

Griefers in the workplace

[PopeRatzo]

Interesting that this "2 in 5" figure nearly perfectly matches my own experience in the workplace.

I've noticed that noticed that managers who are shitty people are usually shitty managers, too. The best approach I've found to dealing with them is to try to maintain as high a level of personal ethics and professionalism as possible, and let them simmer in their own acid. And by all means, if it's so bad that you find yourself grinding your teeth in your sleep or chomping antacids throughout the day, leave the job. Today if you can, and get that resume out immediately if you cannot. Life is too short to live in pain.

After all, you became a techie so you wouldn't have to deal with such assholes. In most organizations, you can find other decent humans who actually care about what's best for the enterprise and their co-workers and probably also hate your boss. Find them, befriend them, but don't get into the "bitch about your boss" sessions. Positivity will bring about change, and get you noticed by the higher management, faster than complaining.

Years ago, before I had enough personal juice to be able to actively avoid assholes, I was having trouble sleeping and actually ground my teeth in my sleep (according to my girlfriend, now my wife). I couldn't do much at the time, but I started working out every day with a heavy bag and 8-oz gloves, then swim laps for 20 minutes. The exercise helped me sleep and getting into shape made it easier to be calm and take a longer, more positive approach to my work hours. Bosses who are bullies don't enjoy picking emotionally healthy people as targets, and mine made the mistake of turning his negative attention onto a newer employee, a quiet young woman who happened to also be very talented. She also happened to be dating a lawyer who encouraged her to file a formal complaint with the company. The bad boss was transferred out of the division and within 6 months I got his job.

By the way the same positivity and ethical behavior that was so helpful to an employee working for a very bad boss turned out to also serve me very very well as a first-time manager.

It's corny as hell, but "Don't Be Evil" works just fine as a guiding principle in the workplace, no matter what your rank.

Re:Griefers in the workplace

[Darth_brooks]

It's corny as hell, but "Don't Be Evil" works just fine as a guiding principle in the workplace, no matter what your rank.

That being said, there's nothing wrong with pulling aside an employee that is as useless as tits on a snake and and directly dealing with the fact that they are a problem. My biggest gripe with the various managers I've had at different jobs has been this; No one wants to confront an employee directly for fear of looking like a loud mouth jerk of a boss.

The best manager I've ever had was the guy that ran the warehouse where I had my first job. The place was populated with slackers, so it was ideal for a 16 year old. The work was just hard enough that they couldn't train monkeys to do it, so they used high schoolers instead. I worked hard, kept my mouth shut, and didn't have a problem. But some of the other guys did, and complained that the boss was always riding their ass about something. It didn't take much effort to put 2 and 2 together. Show up late and leave early all the time? Boss chews you out. Sit on your ass all night and not finish what you're supposed to? Meeting with the boss. Get caught stealing? You're fired. Amazing concepts, I know.

Since then it's an entirely different attitude everywhere else. Everyplace I've worked that's been supposedly more "professional" has had bosses who avoid confrontation like the plauge. A couple specific employees have problems showing up on time? The "department" has an "attendance issue." Someone doesn't know how to answer a phone like an intellegent adult? "Customer service training" for everyone. The useless bits of societal cholesteral get the security blanket of thinking that "well, obviously I'm not the only one who's screwing up!", while the decent employees get a healthy dose of "Awww geez, not this shit again. Can't we just get to the point and fire Bob?"

Sadly, there are useless people in the world. Useless, useless people. We all work with them and know who they are. And they survive because someone doesn't let them get culled from the pack.

There's no excuse for wandering around your department wanting to think people live in fear of you and your pompus jackassery. But there needs to be a bit more accountability in the world. (so says the guy posting on slashdot...) Trust me, I'd love it if the boss pulled me aside and said "hey, dumbass, quit slacking." But instead, it'll come out as "Subject: Dept. Meeting, all staff are required to attend....." just like everything else.

Re:Griefers in the workplace

[Maxo-Texas]

If they discipline anyone except a white male directly, it is very likely they will be sued.

It's an aftereffect of earlier racism. At some point, it will fade and the people will be punished or rewarded without regard to race or sex.

Verbal abuse

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Yep.

Not only that, but in a horribly inappropriate place, too.

Was on a trade show floor, in our booth, and the boss was unhappy about how some code was implemented. He went ballistic on me and a coworker... RIGHT THERE IN OUR BOOTH!!!!

I kept my mouth shut, but was thinking, "You know, there's a time and a place for everything, and this is neither the time nor the place."

Re:Culture of abuse = $$$

[version5]

If you had worked 20 days straight and needed a day off to see a doctor about feeling dizzy, you were branded a slacker or a pussy... Only when Microsoft started hiring more women and minorities did things change to a large degree. Of course, Microsoft's productivity also took a hit right around that time too. So, what am I saying?

You are saying that its awesome to be so weak-minded that you can be bullied into risking damage to your health so you can ship some bullshit product that will be obsolete in a year and a half. Also, you are saying that its a wondrously manly virtue to treat yourself and others as if they are empty shells with no intrinsic value outside of their ability to perform a function. In our society, men are trained to believe in the virtue of "taking one for the team." In practice, this means:

• pretend to be invulnerable, ignore your basic physical and emotional needs and desensitize yourself to pain
• take extremely dangerous jobs where you could be hurt or killed and don't complain about it
• join the military and risk violent and bloody death for "patriotism" and "loyalty" -- which are code words that really mean "you have the obligation to die" -- even though war mainly benefits a handful of rich people
• men are taught to believe that they are worthless if they don't have a job. This is why the suicide rate rises with the unemployment rate.
• men are 5 times more likely to kill themselves than women, partly because men are not permitted to express emotional pain
• men are 4 times more likely to be murdered
• male life expectancy is 5-10 years less than women, partly because male virtues include recklessness, aggression, competition and emotional repression leading to suicide

From an early age, men are suckered into the macho cult of invulnerability, aggression and competition, and taught that it makes us powerful. But it doesn't, it kills us off in large numbers. But it sure works out well for the wealthy. Are you having a hard time finding workers willing to be shot at, burned or buried alive, have their limbs torn off by machinery and their bodies subjected to toxic chemicals? Just tell them they are a bunch of pussies, and not only will they be begging you for the chance to prove their manhood, they'll also do free recruiting. Men are taunted, bullied and humiliated to the point that even their basic humanity is taken -- something that no-one has the right to take -- and then taught they can earn it back by suffering and dying for some rich person on a literal or metaphorical battle field. Those that survive turn around and hand their sons the same raw deal.