NationStates Jolt Archive

Do we really need men?

The Y-chromosome - the ultimate symbol of machismo - is in a bad way. But, asks Bryan Sykes, apart from breeding, what real use is the male to the human race?

Thursday August 28, 2003
The Guardian

It is no secret that men are basically genetically modified women - the female being the fall-back developmental pathway for any fetus. The evolution of the two sexes could indeed be regarded as a long-running GM experiment.
Its legacy has been to endow men and women with different, and often conflicting, sets of genetic interests, and to ignite a powerful evolutionary struggle, which has accentuated the differences between the two sexes. In several respects, the experiment that gave us men is not going too well just now. Though it is a weary lament to lay most acts of violence and aggression, from the strictly local to the truly global, squarely at the feet of men, the association is strong, consistent and undeniable. Women very rarely commit violent crimes, become tyrants or start wars.
The experiment has created two irreconciliable genetic combatants. On the female side is mitochondrial DNA, which can only be passed down the maternal line. On the male side is the Y-chromosome, which is always passed from father to son. But while mitochondrial DNA is a model of slimmed-down efficiency, the Y-chromosome is a shambles, battered by mutation and going downhill fast, before it eventually disappears altogether. On this chromosome resides the single genetic switch (SRY) which, when flicked to "on", prevents human embryos from developing into baby girls and turns them into boys instead. Also spread out on this dying chromosome are the handful of other genes that men need to make fully operational sperm.
But why is this ultimate symbol of male machismo in such a mess? Originally the Y-chromosome was a perfectly respectable chromosome with a collection of genes doing all sorts of useful things - much like the X-chromosome today. But its fate was sealed when it took on the mantle of creating males. This probably happened in the early ancestors of mammals, perhaps 100m years ago when a mutation on the ancestor of the Y-chromosome suddenly, and quite by chance, enabled it to switch on the embryonic pathway to male development. Once this happened, the chromosome was doomed. It slowly lost contact with other chromosomes, thus missing out on the interaction that normally allows the shuffling of genes and so unable to properly heal the wounds inflicted by mutations. One by one, its thousands of useful genes were lost until now only 27 remain - and they are under constant threat.
Of all our chromosomes, it is the only one that is permanently locked into the germ cells of men, where the frenzy of cell division and error-prone DNA copying required to keep up the daily output of 150m sperm creates the ideal conditions for mutation. And it shows. Seven per cent of men are infertile or sub-fertile and in roughly a quarter of cases the problem is traceable to new Y-chromosome mutations, not present in their fathers, which disable one or other of the few remaining genes. This is an astonishigly high figure, and there is no reason to think things will improve in the future - quite the reverse in fact. One by one, Y-chromosomes will disappear, eliminated by the relentless onslaught of irreparable mutation, until only one is left. When that chromosome finally succumbs, men will become extinct.
Advertiser links
But when? I estimate that, at the current rate, male fertility caused by Y-chromosome decay will decline to 1% of its present level within 5,000 generations - roughly 125,000 years. Not exactly the day after tomorrow - but equally, not an unimaginably long time ahead. Unless something changes in the way we breed, women will vanish too and Homo sapiens will disappear in the next 1-200,000 years. But is extinction inevitable?
Plenty of species a lot older than our own are still going, so how is it that they are not vulnerable to extinction by the same process of Y-chromosome decay? They will all eventually face the same challenge and I suspect that many species have already gone under for this very reason. Some, however, have found a way round their death sentence.
One strategy is to recruit genes on other chromosomes to take over the job of male development. It is a race against time. Can a species get all the genes it needs off the Y-chromosome, or recreate them elsewhere, before the chromosome finally vanishes? Always the last gene to go will be SRY, the male master switch itself. We know it is capable of smuggling itself onto another chromosome - the evidence lies in the rare cases of males who have no Y-chromosome.
Lots of species may have tried variations on this theme to avoid extinction, but it seemed that none succeeded until, in 1995, researchers found a mammal that had managed to escape this fate. When they looked at the chromosomes of a small burrowing rodent called the mole vole, Ellobius lutescens, which lives in the foothills of the Caucasus mountains, they discovered that the male voles didn't have a Y-chromosome. Neither, it transpired, did they have a master SRY gene either. This inconspicuous little rodent has managed to activate a gene relay one or two stages down the line from SRY. And only just in time. The mole vole Y-chromosome has now completely disappeared. The vole is now safe from Y-chromosome-driven extinction, the only mammal species known to have succeeded in getting itself out of danger.
But one thing distinguishes Homo sapiens - we are at least capable of being aware of our impending demise. So do we need men? They are still required for breeding, if nothing else. But for how much longer?
The wide application of Intra-Cellular Sperm Injection (ICSI), the fertilisation of eggs by injecting sperm, could delay the extinction but it would still not prevent the progressive deterioration of the Y-chromosome. Other remedies have yet to be proved effective, but if men are to be retained they are at least worth considering. For instance, could we deliberately engineer the solution so
fortuitously arrived at by the mole vole? The human Y-chromosome could be left to decay, but men would be reprieved. We now know the 27 genes that are present and necessary on today's Y-chromosome to make a man in full working order. It would be easy to cut them out of the wreckage of the Y-chromosome and re-assemble them into a compact genetic package. From there, it would be relatively straightforward to insert the package into another chromosome, where it would probably work straight away.
The purpose of all this effort and ingenuity is to avoid the extinction of men, and with them our entire species. However, one radical solution to save the species is also the most genetically straightforward - to abandon men altogether. Though this sounds impossible, very little stands in its way from the genetic point of view. When sperm meets egg, it brings with it a set of nuclear chromosomes from the father, which, after fertilisation, mixes with a set of nuclear chromosomes from the mother. But there is nothing fundamental preventing the nuclear chromosomes coming not from a sperm but from another egg. We know from ICSI that sperm can be injected into eggs, and there is nothing to stop the nucleus from a second egg being injected instead.
But would it develop normally? At the moment the answer is no, but it is short-sighted to say that it is fundamentally impossible. Once the technical snags have been overcome - and I put the difficulties no higher than that - these embryos would grow into perfectly normal babies. The only difference from any other birth is that the sex is always predictable. The baby is always going to be a girl. The entire process has been accomplished without sperm, without Y-chromosomes and without men.
Importantly, the baby girls will not be clones. They are the same mixture of their parents' genes, shuffled just as thoroughly as any of today's children and they have two biological parents, not just one. Their only difference from any other child is that instead of a father and mother, these girls have two mothers. From a genetic point of view, they are completely normal, indistinguishable from any little girls around today and just as capable of having children with men (while they are still around).
Lesbian couples already enlist the help of a man to donate his set of chromosomes, packaged in a sperm, to fertilise the eggs of one of them. How much more attractive for these couples to have a baby to whom both, rather than just one, were parents. It is almost certain to happen and, unlike human cloning, I doubt there would be serious ethical objections. Men are now on notice.
According to Brian Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, the future of the human Y-chromosome (and therefore human males) may be less secure than previously thought.
The Y-chromosome is solely responsible for flipping the genetic "switch" that prevents a human embryo from developing into a girl (apparently the fall-back developmental pathway for embryos is female).
Because the Y-chromosome switches on the embryonic pathway to male development, it misses out on interaction that allows the shuffling of genes. This interaction normally repairs the damage caused by mutations, so is critical to the long term survival of the chromosome. Unable to properly repair the accumulating damage, the Y-chromosome is loosing useful genes at an alarming rate. Originally this chromosome had thousand of genes, but now it has dwindled to a mere 27.
Sykes estimates that about a quarter of today's male infertility is caused by this process of decay, and estimates that in about 125,000 years 99% of human males will be infertile.
Obviously, this does not bode well for Homo sapiens in general. One possible solution would be to recruit genes on other chromosomes to take over the job of male development. This is way beyond the reach of genetic engineering today, but who can say what this technology can do in the future.
Failing that, the article proposes the more genetically straightforward solution might be to give up on trying to produce men. ICSI (Intra-Cellular Sperm Injection) has already shown that you can fertilize and egg by injecting it with sperm. Fertilizing an egg with a nucleus from a second egg is just a matter of overcoming some technical hurdles. Of course, with no Y-chromosone in the mix, the resulting embryo would always be female.
The girls produced by this technology would be no different from naturally born girls today. They would still have mixture of their parents genes, and would continue the process of mixing the gene pool that is beneficial to the species.
You can read the full article with all it's mind bending details on The Guardian.

I have moved this thread here from International Incidence. I thought it would make a good discussion thread.

sure we need men! They are fun to watch. ;)

We don't really need men, but they are fun to play with...

I agree, they are fun to have around for certain things, but sometimes they aren't so fun

Sure you need men. What are you going to do when something breaks?

I agree, they are fun to have around for certain things, but sometimes they aren't so fun
are we still talking about men? hee hee! :D

Well, unless you want to be penetrated by a turkey baster or a strap-on, you'll need men. Real men.

But the issue here is wether or not we want to try to do something about stopping the decay of the Y-chromosome

I would have thought that this would be a very important issue the males of the world. Like shouldn't the male scientist of the world be trying to fix
the problem their selves before it's to late?

I agree, they are fun to have around for certain things, but sometimes they aren't so fun

Well, keep them around for those certain things, then send 'em home. Especially if they're being no fun, which can and does indeed happen all too often.

Sorry not to have stated my position more clearly at first.

But the issue here is wether or not we want to try to do something about stopping the decay of the Y-chromosome

No, not really. Bring it on!

Sure we need men, otherwise who would be President?

Oh great...give ammunition to everyone who already (erroneously) believes that feminism equals man-hating. (rolling eyes) Thanks to this sort of garbage, I have to justify my feminism by qualifying it (no, I'm not a man-hating lesbian who wants to call man-holes womyn-holes). Arggh. :mad:

Sure you need men. What are you going to do when something breaks?

We could learn to fix it ourselves, but wheres the fun in that

By the way...would this be an acceptable thread if it was titled: Do we really need women?

What about pickle jars? =P

Sure we need men, otherwise who would be President?

God Forbid ... a Woman I guess

Oh great...give ammunition to everyone who already (erroneously) believes that feminism equals man-hating. (rolling eyes) Thanks to this sort of garbage, I have to justify my feminism by qualifying it (no, I'm not a man-hating lesbian who wants to call man-holes womyn-holes). Arggh. :mad:

Speaking as a man who has been penetrated by a strap on as well as a real man, I prefer the real thing.

By the way...would this be an acceptable thread if it was titled: Do we really need women?

I was thinking that myself, although I just breezed through the original post, it seemed to keep on a pretty scientific level.

It's true, We are violent, certainly ugly, and getting worse and worse at math. Just promise you'll put a grandfather clause on the fella's still kicking around, I like me. Also, not to be too beligerant, but if you do decide to wipe us out, when you're tinkering with the genetics of it all, you had best program a gene into the new girls that gives them the ability to open Jam jars, my wife was in a pretty big bind the other day.

By the way...would this be an acceptable thread if it was titled: Do we really need women?


Read the article ... we aren't the ones with a decaying chromosome

God Forbid ... a Woman I guess

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! :eek:


;)

Wow, what an interesting article.

Scientifically....
I guess in terms of "breeding" at the moment we DO need men. ICSI is so expensive that having to go through the process everytime a woman wanted children would be ridiculous. Even though some states (not all, in fact only 15 even try to help cover some of the costs) do offer help via insurance coverage. So right now, artificial insemination isn't an option for all couples, so males ARE needed

Personally...
I think we do need men because of the differences between men and women. I love my girl friends, but sometimes we females need the company of males (even if it is to help us feel more sane :) ). Now, I can't have childrem, so adopting is pretty much my only option if I want children, so "breeding" isn't really high on my list of priorities and I'm sure there are a lot of other women who feel the same as I do (or who can't have children as well) so they would be looking at it somewhat the same way.

So I guess what I'm saying is, we might as well keep them around :)

And as much as the Y chromosome is going down the drain... If you start mixing X's, it'll only be so long before it goes too.

I was thinking that myself, although I just breezed through the original post, it seemed to keep on a pretty scientific level.
Yes it did...nonetheless, the original poster has not remained scientific, and of course a thread named thusly will turn into a man-bashing, woman-bashing melee.

Being a man, who is living the never ending search for a womans love - Id like to think that there are women out there who need men just as much as men need women.

Well, it'll be shame once they're gone, in a number of ways, a relief in many others. Kinda like a houseguest who doesn't know when to take a hike...

But if that's what's in the cards dealt, play 'em.

ok

so if we take the female as the "real" human. the base model as it were with the male being the specialized version, what IS their purpose? why not just have women with a few women here and there having a y chromosome for breeding purposes? why are men MALE as opposed to being a woman with a penis?

for bare reproduction we need far fewer men than we do women, one man can father hundreds of children a woman can max out at less than 2 dozen. practically speaking, a woman maxes out at around 6. a man has no optimal maximum other than that limit imposed by implied inbreeding of his children if he has too many in any one area.

so if we take it from a woman's point of view, why are there men?

in the primitive past a woman needed a man for protection during pregnancy, childbirth and lactation. without a strong protector she would be too vulnerable to predators. without a good hunter, she would not have the nutrition she needed to produce children who would survive to breeding age.

men are not big and strong because they compete with each other for females but because the female NEEDS a big strong man in order to successfully produce the maximum number of children to their own breeding age.

so do we need men TODAY? will we need them in the future? do they actually do anything in todays world that women NEED them for other than the creation of children? (which according to this article seems to be on its way out in a mere 100,000 years or so) will we end up with a group of xx MALES when the y chromosome peters out because we have some need of MALENESS in the world?

hmmmm is the whole scientific/industrial revolution just a way to make men obsolete? their strength and size are puny compared to the strength of machines. male agression is more of a problem in the world than a virtue. without men, where would the crime rate be? how many wars would be started by an all female society? i suppose such things would still happen but not on nearly the same scale. HMMMMMMMM

the world would be a poorer place without maleness but our own preferences arent important in the evolutionary scheme of things. all that matters is whether or not men are NECESSARY.

do we really need men?

Shouldn't you guys be trying to save your own genders necks wether or not the females of the world are?

Sexist feminists :rolleyes:

This post is retarded. The very question of men dying out is insane, and this whole "Oh i dont need men" bullshit has got to stop, no you do not need men, women are equal. Bullshit posts like this do nothing but insult.. if a post like this was directed towards women, it would be called sexist so quickly.

I think the fact that anyone could take this seriously is just pathetic

Oh great...give ammunition to everyone who already (erroneously) believes that feminism equals man-hating. (rolling eyes) Thanks to this sort of garbage, I have to justify my feminism by qualifying it (no, I'm not a man-hating lesbian who wants to call man-holes womyn-holes). Arggh. :mad:

I agree. Feminist has become a dirty word. When it comes to feminists today there are few who are generally respected (maybe Hillary Clinton but she is hated as well). Then there were the feminists who really stood for equality: Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and so on.

If science shows there is no longer a need for men, then I suppose the answer is that humanity has no need for men. I certainly hope there is not any sort of wholesale extermination planned, though, because I am a man and I would prefer to live.

Yes it did...nonetheless, the original poster has not remained scientific, and of course a thread named thusly will turn into a man-bashing, woman-bashing melee.

I'm not bashing men ... I love men ... most of the time ... hehehe

Yes it did...nonetheless, the original poster has not remained scientific, and of course a thread named thusly will turn into a man-bashing, woman-bashing melee.

That would be fine with me because I am pretty sure men are the better bashers.

Fascinating article. I think the issue isn't if you need men, but a y chromosome, as the article talks about. I think once that disappears, our concepts of gender should disappear now. Kudos to the whoever questioned why we don't think of "men" as just women with penises. Gender is a social construct, and as a male, I have no issue with the idea of "the man" becoming extinct. Humans will still exist and be unique, and some will be "masculine" or "feminine" without having to have a specific anatomy (although I propose those words will probably be different once gender is abolished). It's all very post-modern - I love it!

Yes it did...nonetheless, the original poster has not remained scientific, and of course a thread named thusly will turn into a man-bashing, woman-bashing melee.

Well, if people can't be bothered to read the article, shame on them for proceeding from ignorance...

Of course there is always asexual reproduction

Of course there is always asexual reproduction

Parthinogenesis? Cloning?

I'm all in favour of reproductive cloning technologies...

Of course, now that we can clone, we don't really need women any more either do we. Maybe we should genetically modify clones to be non-gender specific. :p ;)

Sexist feminists :rolleyes:

This post is retarded. The very question of men dying out is insane, and this whole "Oh i dont need men" bullshit has got to stop, no you do not need men, women are equal. Bullshit posts like this do nothing but insult.. if a post like this was directed towards women, it would be called sexist so quickly.

I think the fact that anyone could take this seriously is just pathetic

I agree completely!

By the way...would this be an acceptable thread if it was titled: Do we really need women?
Most of the things being said by women in this thread are female chauvinism. If there was a such a thread with men making stupid chauvinist comments, they would rightly be castigated for being idiots.

Well, keep them around for those certain things, then send 'em home. Especially if they're being no fun, which can and does indeed happen all too often.

Sorry not to have stated my position more clearly at first.

No, not really. Bring it on!
So why do you hate men? Why do you want us to disappear? Who would provide sex? (Unless you're lesbian.)

Of course, now that we can clone, we don't really need women any more either do we. Maybe we should genetically modify clones to be non-gender specific. :p ;)

You are missing the point, we need to fix the Y-Chromosome. I believe that
would be important to have even for cloning purposes

I agree completely!

For crying out loud did either of you even read the article

It always amuses me when women pretend that they don't need men, and that we are just a bunch of primitive sex-maniacs.

hmmmm is the whole scientific/industrial revolution just a way to make men obsolete? their strength and size are puny compared to the strength of machines.
Nearly all the machine were invented by men.

Ina world without men, there would be a shortage of engineers and other such professions which require skills on which men have a monopoly.

Most of the things being said by women in this thread are female chauvinism. If there was a such a thread with men making stupid chauvinist comments, they would rightly be castigated for being idiots.


So why do you hate men? Why do you want us to disappear? Who would provide sex? (Unless you're lesbian.)

As I've said before I Love Men, I don't hate them. But that won't matter
unless science finds a way to fix the Y-Chromosome.

mmm, intresting idea...

so, in 125,000years.. all men will have become exticnt? intresting...

given the current amount of tech we have now.. and its general complexity.. I dont forsee a very Vivable All-Female world working..

why? simple.. take two women.. say they want to have a kid... unless they have a simple, easy way for one woman to "pass" her egg onto the next, and for the Two eggs to "Geneticly" bond with each other.. with out outside "Interfearance", they have to go without...

not because they Can't.. because most of our Current Mechanical Alternatives to Sex are... well.. crude.

sex is simple.. a few nights together, in the right time.. and 9months latter, you have a kid.. requires only two people, with the right biological equipment.

artifical insemantion.. complex, chancey, requires use of Fertitality drugs, needs a lab, workers, and machinery to do it with.


so, what we should really be concentrating on.. is not Elimanation of males.. but genticaly modifing Humans to no longer need the "Y" chromosone. if this leads to true Hermaphrodites, or something else is upto the Gentic desiners..and socitey in that time.

note: i'm male, and i have no problem with the Y being done away with.. but i will miss the death of humanity.. bummer.. i needa cryotube!! ;)

So why do you hate men? Why do you want us to disappear? Who would provide sex? (Unless you're lesbian.)

I don't anticipate I'll wake up tomorrow to find all the men disappeared like some hokey sci-fi film. Why do you assume I hate them? I love 'em in small doses...

...but I've had too many friends allow themselves to be subtly and not-so-subtly controlled/dominated by menfolk. A number of these were people who couldn't provide for their own sexual pleasure - could not achieve orgasm without a partner - and so consigned themselves to the attentions of a partner, only to find that partner was inherently possessive/jealous/patronizing.

Thankfully, the people I know who were in this situation have since learned the joys of masturbation, and though they might entertain a penis or two on occasion, take their sexual gratification in their own hands (so to speak). All report that they no longer have the intention of living with men in future, barring unforeseen circumstance.

It always amuses me when women pretend that they don't need men, and that we are just a bunch of primitive sex-maniacs.


Nearly all the machine were invented by men.

Ina world without men, there would be a shortage of engineers and other such professions which require skills on which men have a monopoly.

Oh really ... now whos making stupid chauvinist comments?

On a side note, certainly you girls are not considering getting rid of us gay men as well, no? Who would go shopping with you? Who would accompany you to the hairdresser, the manicure, who would give you fashion counseling?

You females may not need the average hetero chauvinistic macho, but you can't do without us! YOU NEED US, YOU HEAR ME? YOU'RE NOTHING WITHOUT US!


:D

Well, if people can't be bothered to read the article, shame on them for proceeding from ignorance...

Dobbs, I am not referring to the article. The article is scientific, yes, but the thread title is not (it is flame bait if I ever saw it), and the original poster herself, and you, both included sexist remarks that are certainly NOT scientific. That is what I am referring to. Shame on you for denigrating men.

We don't really need men, but they are fun to play with...

I agree, they are fun to have around for certain things, but sometimes they aren't so fun

Again I ask, would those comments (among others made) be appropriate if you were talking about women?

I am not sure where the original 'evidence' for this post came from, since I can't seem to locate the article, but it has some pretty basic flaws. First off, mammals are not the only species to determine sex via differentiated sex chromosomes. So do insects (ex. drosophila, the highly studied "fruit fly'). So do birds, although it is the female who has two mismatched chromosomes (called Z and W) and the male who has the match (two Z's). Other species determine gender by enviromental stimulae (such as temperature of the developing eggs of some species of turtle), or by self-fertilization of hermaphrodites (in teleost fishes). None of these species appear to have declining populations due to impaired fertility of males.
Secondly, the theory that 99% of human males will be sterile in 125,000 years is bogus. A sterile male cannot naturally reproduce, therefore he cannot pass on his "damaged" genes to the next generation. The fertile males would have more offspring, so the "fertile" genes would be spread throughout the population and counter the increasing sterility effects. Also, mutation works both ways. It is more likely to have a random mutation make a gene null (since that is relatively easy to do), but there are rare occasions when the random mutation actually improves the ability of the gene or gives it a new function. Over the course of evolution, these random "improvements" are what led to the development of the many, many, many species we see today.
There are several reasons for the increase in infertility seen in today's cultures. Many women are waiting longer to have children--often into their 30's. Female fertility (and fecundity) declines naturally after the age of 25. The effect on male fertility is not as drastic, but it also exists. I also have yet to see a study comparing the fertility of "normally" conceived children with those conceived via reproductive assistance. It stands to reason that a child from a genetically sub-fertile parent or parents will most like also be sub-fertile. (This obviously excludes those couples who have difficulty conceiving due to effects of injury or illness). For example, if a mother has problems carrying a child to term b/c she doesn't produce enough progesterone and requires supplements, it stands to reason that her daughter could have the same problem. Or a man whose sperm do not develop properly and requires ICSI in order to conceive a biological child. Any son this man conceives is at increased risk of having the same problem. Yet people prate on and on about the increasing rate of infertility and how men are going the way of the dodo, etc., etc...
On the basis of the men vs. women argument, men and women balance each other out. That is the way the species is designed to work. Kind of like politics. ;)

You are missing the point, we need to fix the Y-Chromosome. I believe that
would be important to have even for cloning purposes

Just for the record, that comment was entirely sarcastic. The point that I wouldn't really advocate in favor of, was that it is nearly possible that neither gender is "necessary" for the existance of some form of humanity.

It always amuses me when women pretend that they don't need men, and that we are just a bunch of primitive sex-maniacs.


Nearly all the machine were invented by men.

Ina world without men, there would be a shortage of engineers and other such professions which require skills on which men have a monopoly.

nothing that only requires intellect requres MEN. that men have made machines in the past doesnt mean we NEED them to do so in the future. women are just as capable of any engineering/science/manufacturing sort of jobs. besides we are not talking about genocide, we are talking about a natural process occurring over the next 100,000 or so years that may need fixing at some time in the future. more than enough time to train more female engineers.

i am not gleefully anticipating a future without men. i am addressing the question posited by the original poster, DO WE REALLY NEED MEN?

and it seems that it will become an important question in the future as the decay of the y chromosome means we WILL have fewer and fewer men.

in theory, evolution will find another means of sexual reproduction or we will go extinct. if it is left just to evolution, will the resultant "other gender without a y chromosome" be MALE? would it NEED to be male because we in fact NEED maleness? and if we DO, beyond any thought of personal preference, what IS it about maleness that we NEED? is it just reproduction or it is more than that?

i think its an interesting question.

I don't anticipate I'll wake up tomorrow to find all the women disappeared like some hokey sci-fi film. Why do you assume I hate them? I love 'em in small doses...

...but I've had too many friends allow themselves to be subtly and not-so-subtly controlled/dominated by womenfolk. A number of these were people who couldn't provide for their own sexual pleasure - could not achieve orgasm without a partner - and so consigned themselves to the attentions of a partner, only to find that partner was inherently possessive/jealous/patronizing.

Thankfully, the people I know who were in this situation have since learned the joys of masturbation, and though they might entertain a vagina or two on occasion, take their sexual gratification in their own hands (so to speak). All report that they no longer have the intention of living with women in future, barring unforeseen circumstance.

Emphasis added.

On a side note, certainly you girls are not considering getting rid of us gay men as well, no? Who would go shopping with you? Who would accompany you to the hairdresser, the manicure, who would give you fashion counseling?

You females may not need the average hetero chauvinistic macho, but you can't do without us! YOU NEED US, YOU HEAR ME? YOU'RE NOTHING WITHOUT US!


:D
oh heaven forfend!
the world would just be too dull!

I have two words for why we need both women and men "genetic drift". The only way for women, or men (it's must be possible as well) to reproduce asexually or with another person of the same sex would be through science, which is imperfect. Since it is imperfect that would mean the bonding of DNA in an artificial birth would also be imperfect and get less and less perfect until it simply can't hold together. This also holds true for cloning. Sorry ladies you are stuck with us.

Dobbs, I am not referring to the article. The article is scientific, yes, but the thread title is not (it is flame bait if I ever saw it), and the original poster herself, and you, both included sexist remarks that are certainly NOT scientific. That is what I am referring to. Shame on you for denigrating men.

Again I ask, would those comments (among others made) be appropriate if you were talking about women?

Come on, get off yer high horses. Those comments were pretty humorous, in my opinion. If I'm a man and I can find em funny without being offended, so can you.

And it's not like men don't post and say A LOT more sexist remarks towards women. I say we shut up and take it up the arse like a man, because we men have said much worse without so much as a stir from the women being made fun of.

Shame on you for denigrating men.


Men operate from a position of privilege. You should be congratulating me.


Again I ask, would those comments (among others made) be appropriate if you were talking about women?

Considering I'm transgendered, I feel it's appropriate for me to take potshots at whatever side I feel deserves it. I don't feel the women deserve it.

Anyway, the point is moot, the menfolk are going the way of the Edsel. Who cares?

Emphasis added.

You're so touchy, what's up with that? GF leave you for a dildo?

I think one of the women should post a thread asking whether or not women want men.

I sure hope that Im wanted one day. All scientific this and that aside, isnt that what matters? Just to love and be loved in return? Why is it that all questions now slope so far away from what we need/want metaphysically as opposed to what we need/want scientifically or physically?

Im such a lonely guy right now, dont pay attention to me. Im being silly.

mmm, intresting idea...

so, in 125,000years.. all men will have become exticnt? intresting...

given the current amount of tech we have now.. and its general complexity.. I dont forsee a very Vivable All-Female world working..

why? simple.. take two women.. say they want to have a kid... unless they have a simple, easy way for one woman to "pass" her egg onto the next, and for the Two eggs to "Geneticly" bond with each other.. with out outside "Interfearance", they have to go without...

not because they Can't.. because most of our Current Mechanical Alternatives to Sex are... well.. crude.

sex is simple.. a few nights together, in the right time.. and 9months latter, you have a kid.. requires only two people, with the right biological equipment.

artifical insemantion.. complex, chancey, requires use of Fertitality drugs, needs a lab, workers, and machinery to do it with.


so, what we should really be concentrating on.. is not Elimanation of males.. but genticaly modifing Humans to no longer need the "Y" chromosone. if this leads to true Hermaphrodites, or something else is upto the Gentic desiners..and socitey in that time.

note: i'm male, and i have no problem with the Y being done away with.. but i will miss the death of humanity.. bummer.. i needa cryotube!! ;)

If we can't fix the "Y" chromosone then that would be the next logical
progression

You're so touchy, what's up with that? GF leave you for a dildo?
Or maybe his dildo left him for his GF

Come on, get off yer high horses. Those comments were pretty humorous, in my opinion. If I'm a man and I can find em funny without being offended, so can you.

Can I? Hey, racist jokes are pretty funny too...sometimes even the butt of the joke thinks they are funny. Nonetheless, the rest of those being made fun of may not find it so amusing, which is why we don't generally run around shouting out racist jokes.

And it's not like men don't post and say A LOT more sexist remarks towards women. I say we shut up and take it up the arse like a man, because we men have said much worse without so much as a stir from the women being made fun of.
It is exactly for this reason that these sexist remarks are inappropriate. Two wrongs don't make a right. "He said this about women, so I say that about men". Grow up, it isn't a sandbox. If you want respect, give it. As a woman, sexism bothers me just as much as racism does (you'll get it in the ear if you start talking bad about Natives, so why should I let you slide if you talk bad about women, OR men?)

Man-bashing is as flawed as so called 'reverse-discrimination'. It's ALL stereotyping and deeply prejudiced. You may be joking...but how do I know that? And in knowing that, does it make it any less hurtful?

Face it. You need us. We can kill spiders in a hurry.

Face it. You need us. We can kill spiders in a hurry.

As one who actually encourages spiders, I won't be requiring your services, thanks all the same...

Men operate from a position of privilege. You should be congratulating me.

There are better ways of dealing with that imbalance. Whites operate from a position of privelege too, but I don't go around saying, "Hey, ding dong the whites are dead!"

Considering I'm transgendered, I feel it's appropriate for me to take potshots at whatever side I feel deserves it. I don't feel the women deserve it.
Neither do all men. Go ahead and take potshots...but admit that you are bashing, not having a reasonable discussion.


You're so touchy, what's up with that? GF leave you for a dildo?
You are making assumptions about my gender and/or sexuality. Frankly, I'm surprised at how you are dealing with this issue. Normally you are much more tolerant and inclusive.

I think one of the women should post a thread asking whether or not women want men.

I sure hope that Im wanted one day. All scientific this and that aside, isnt that what matters? Just to love and be loved in return? Why is it that all questions now slope so far away from what we need/want metaphysically as opposed to what we need/want scientifically or physically?

Im such a lonely guy right now, dont pay attention to me. Im being silly.


awww.......but arent you the one who was having trouble getting into a box earlier? ;)

I think one of the women should post a thread asking whether or not women want men.

I sure hope that Im wanted one day. All scientific this and that aside, isnt that what matters? Just to love and be loved in return? Why is it that all questions now slope so far away from what we need/want metaphysically as opposed to what we need/want scientifically or physically?

Im such a lonely guy right now, dont pay attention to me. Im being silly.
that is an altogether different question now isnt it?

an all female world would drive me crazy. we NEED people around who will just say "SHUT UP!"

and isnt it much better to be wanted than needed? i think that if there really were a chance that men would go extinct that women would be at the forefront of making sure it didnt happen.

Why can't we just dismiss the whole gender hating issue? I'm tired of men getting endless shit from a select group of feminists who had a bad experience.

I'm all for equality and equal treatment, but having someone stand up and say ''our gender is so superior, we are going to ignore the laws of nature and say we can survive without you''.

Can I? Hey, racist jokes are pretty funny too...sometimes even the butt of the joke thinks they are funny. Nonetheless, the rest of those being made fun of may not find it so amusing, which is why we don't generally run around shouting out racist jokes.


It is exactly for this reason that these sexist remarks are inappropriate. Two wrongs don't make a right. "He said this about women, so I say that about men". Grow up, it isn't a sandbox. If you want respect, give it. As a woman, sexism bothers me just as much as racism does (you'll get it in the ear if you start talking bad about Natives, so why should I let you slide if you talk bad about women, OR men?)

Man-bashing is as flawed as so called 'reverse-discrimination'. It's ALL stereotyping and deeply prejudiced. You may be joking...but how do I know that? And in knowing that, does it make it any less hurtful?

Actually no, I'm not joking. I'm very serious, in fact. Face it, men have been in a superiority position for centuries. In face of what some men have inflicted upon women for generations, I think a little self-derision is a small price to pay. You don't have to fear for us(or me particularly) not being able
to defend ourselves if the need arises.

I'm not one to defend political correctness at all costs. If no offense was intended (and I'm pretty much convinced none was intented in this case) I'm not against a little man-bashing occasionnally.

I think one of the women should post a thread asking whether or not women want men.

I sure hope that Im wanted one day. All scientific this and that aside, isnt that what matters? Just to love and be loved in return? Why is it that all questions now slope so far away from what we need/want metaphysically as opposed to what we need/want scientifically or physically?

Im such a lonely guy right now, dont pay attention to me. Im being silly.

I for one do like to have a guy around, but there are women who don't. But
why are the men willing to leave it up to us?

There are better ways of dealing with that imbalance. Whites operate from a position of privelege too, but I don't go around saying, "Hey, ding dong the whites are dead!"

the likelihood is that in 100,000 years there will be no more white people either. all those recessive genes will just fall out of the gene pool. there was a story going around a while back that there will be no more natural blondes in ......100 years or so ....(i dont remember the exact amount)

i suppose we'll all be chinese or indian. *shrug*

Gee, that article was a hoot. The funniest bit was where it was stated that 99% of human males will be infertile in a 125.000 years time, as if humans will still be around then! Bwahaha! :D

the likelihood is that in 100,000 years there will be no more white people either. all those recessive genes will just fall out of the gene pool. there was a story going around a while back that there will be no more natural blondes in ......100 years or so ....(i dont remember the exact amount)

i suppose we'll all be chinese or indian. *shrug*
My point exactly. I'm not celebrating the idea, even though I'm non-white. Nor should women celebrate the idea of men 'dying off'.

EDIT: though just as with the original article, that time frame is pretty meaningless to me anyway.

Dobbs, I am not referring to the article. The article is scientific, yes, but the thread title is not (it is flame bait if I ever saw it), and the original poster herself, and you, both included sexist remarks that are certainly NOT scientific. That is what I am referring to. Shame on you for denigrating men.

The thread title was taken from the article.

Go ahead and take potshots...but admit that you are bashing, not having a reasonable discussion.

I admit I am not having a reasonable conversation. Now you admit you're being touchy.

You are making assumptions about my gender and/or sexuality. Frankly, I'm surprised at how you are dealing with this issue. Normally you are much more tolerant and inclusive.

Yes, I did. Apologies.

I'm surprised with your posts as well.

Sorry to disappoint, but even the most tolerant and inclusive among us have their off-days.

I'll mull this some more, but I can't help but think that an excess of testosterone really doesn't help matters these days. It's perhaps vital and necessary for the pioneering of territory, or tribal combat, but it serves no valid purpose in a modernized, highly socialized milieu. In that context, it is more often than not a recipe for conflict and strife.

If the Y chromosone is on the way out, well...it's on the way out. Evidently nature intends to evolve the species somewhat more over the next few tens of millenia. What of it? It's happening.

I am not sure where the original 'evidence' for this post came from, since I can't seem to locate the article, but it has some pretty basic flaws. First off, mammals are not the only species to determine sex via differentiated sex chromosomes. So do insects (ex. drosophila, the highly studied "fruit fly'). So do birds, although it is the female who has two mismatched chromosomes (called Z and W) and the male who has the match (two Z's). Other species determine gender by enviromental stimulae (such as temperature of the developing eggs of some species of turtle), or by self-fertilization of hermaphrodites (in teleost fishes). None of these species appear to have declining populations due to impaired fertility of males.
Secondly, the theory that 99% of human males will be sterile in 125,000 years is bogus. A sterile male cannot naturally reproduce, therefore he cannot pass on his "damaged" genes to the next generation. The fertile males would have more offspring, so the "fertile" genes would be spread throughout the population and counter the increasing sterility effects. Also, mutation works both ways. It is more likely to have a random mutation make a gene null (since that is relatively easy to do), but there are rare occasions when the random mutation actually improves the ability of the gene or gives it a new function. Over the course of evolution, these random "improvements" are what led to the development of the many, many, many species we see today.
There are several reasons for the increase in infertility seen in today's cultures. Many women are waiting longer to have children--often into their 30's. Female fertility (and fecundity) declines naturally after the age of 25. The effect on male fertility is not as drastic, but it also exists. I also have yet to see a study comparing the fertility of "normally" conceived children with those conceived via reproductive assistance. It stands to reason that a child from a genetically sub-fertile parent or parents will most like also be sub-fertile. (This obviously excludes those couples who have difficulty conceiving due to effects of injury or illness). For example, if a mother has problems carrying a child to term b/c she doesn't produce enough progesterone and requires supplements, it stands to reason that her daughter could have the same problem. Or a man whose sperm do not develop properly and requires ICSI in order to conceive a biological child. Any son this man conceives is at increased risk of having the same problem. Yet people prate on and on about the increasing rate of infertility and how men are going the way of the dodo, etc., etc...
On the basis of the men vs. women argument, men and women balance each other out. That is the way the species is designed to work. Kind of like politics. ;)


Maybe studying these differentiated sex chromosomes is the key to fixing
the problem.

Dobbs, I am not referring to the article. The article is scientific, yes, but the thread title is not (it is flame bait if I ever saw it), and the original poster herself, and you, both included sexist remarks that are certainly NOT scientific. That is what I am referring to. Shame on you for denigrating men.

The thread title was taken from the article.
And the rest? The title of the article is no doubt meant to be flame bait as well. It is an attention grabber. It's like an article called, "Do we really need Indians?" You posted it, and you could have changed the title to something a little more relevant.

EDIT: not the main point of course...I'm more concerned with the sexism than the science:)

Why do we need men?? because men ar eproven to be taller and stronger..Who would do all the manual labour?? Who wouldn't care about getting their hands muddy or nails broken?? Imagine it a women with nails trying to do building work!! Humerous hey?? Men=Rock music...Men= great artists and thinkers..Ever heard of some of the greatest thinkers of all time?/ Wern't they men?? Jesus was male!!

Why can't we just dismiss the whole gender hating issue? I'm tired of men getting endless shit from a select group of feminists who had a bad experience.

I'm all for equality and equal treatment, but having someone stand up and say ''our gender is so superior, we are going to ignore the laws of nature and say we can survive without you''.
i just skimmed through every post on this thread

i have NO idea what any of you are talking about when you say its man bashing

please point out to me EXACTLY which posts, posted by a woman, you are referring to when you make these claims of endless shit from feminist.

i dont think you read the FIRST post or any of the subsequent ones.

Why do we need men?? because men ar eproven to be taller and stronger..Who would do all the manual labour?? Who wouldn't care about getting their hands muddy or nails broken?? Imagine it a women with nails trying to do building work!! Humerous hey?? Men=Rock music...Men= great artists and thinkers..Ever heard of some of the greatest thinkers of all time?/ Wern't they men?? Jesus was male!!
Hey don’t limit rock to just us men … I know some awesome rockin women!

Why do we need men?? because men ar eproven to be taller and stronger..Who would do all the manual labour?? Who wouldn't care about getting their hands muddy or nails broken?? Imagine it a women with nails trying to do building work!! Humerous hey?? Men=Rock music...Men= great artists and thinkers..Ever heard of some of the greatest thinkers of all time?/ Wern't they men?? Jesus was male!!

Yeah but Jeramiah was a bullfrog.

I for one do like to have a guy around, but there are women who don't. But
why are the men willing to leave it up to us?

Meh, evolution will fix it. And if it doesn't, and the planet's biosphere reverts to single-cell organisms some time in the near-to distant future, well that's the circle of life for you. :)

*goes off to pray to a graven image of Darwin*

Hey don’t limit rock to just us men … I know some awesome rockin women!


word up

Face it. You need us. We can kill spiders in a hurry.

Yes there is that, I hate spiders

Yes there is that, I hate spiders

People call my place 'spider-land' in the summer...but I love those darling little arachnids - they keep my home free of nasty insects.

the likelihood is that in 100,000 years there will be no more white people either. all those recessive genes will just fall out of the gene pool. there was a story going around a while back that there will be no more natural blondes in ......100 years or so ....(i dont remember the exact amount)

i suppose we'll all be chinese or indian. *shrug*

Don't try to make this a Racial thing ... I don't condone racism in any form

Why do we need men?? because men ar eproven to be taller and stronger..Who would do all the manual labour?? Who wouldn't care about getting their hands muddy or nails broken?? Imagine it a women with nails trying to do building work!! Humerous hey?? Men=Rock music...Men= great artists and thinkers..Ever heard of some of the greatest thinkers of all time?/ Wern't they men?? Jesus was male!!

What time are you living in...the stone age? I know women who could pulp you. Manual labour? Which most of the time means driving and operating machinery? Plenty of women do it....just like they join the army, or become lawyers, or a myriad of other traditional 'male' dominated careers. You are stereotyping women...you think we all have long nails, wear makeup and skirts? Wake up and look around you. Men=Rock music...yeah, like Janis Joplin, Stevie Nicks etc etc etc didn't exist... Men=Great Artists and Thinkers....like Frida Kahlo, Georgia O'Keefe, Simone de Beavoir, Sor Juana, Angela Davis...sorry if you haven't heard of them, I guess that just means you need to go back to school. Jesus was male? Oh shut up. What does that prove? It proves only that Jesus was a man. Are you equating yourself to Jesus? Please.

Gee, that article was a hoot. The funniest bit was where it was stated that 99% of human males will be infertile in a 125.000 years time, as if humans will still be around then! Bwahaha! :D

Well barring we don't kill each other off before then, it could be possible that we will be around then.

Of course the human race needs men, there has to be at least one sex that can drive properly.

Don't try to make this a Racial thing ... I don't condone racism in any form
But sexism is ok.

What time are you living in...the stone age? I know women who could pulp you. Manual labour? Which most of the time means driving and operating machinery? Plenty of women do it....just like they join the army, or become lawyers, or a myriad of other traditional 'male' dominated careers. You are stereotyping women...you think we all have long nails, wear makeup and skirts? Wake up and look around you. Men=Rock music...yeah, like Janis Joplin, Stevie Nicks etc etc etc didn't exist... Men=Great Artists and Thinkers....like Frida Kahlo, Georgia O'Keefe, Simone de Beavoir, Sor Juana, Angela Davis...sorry if you haven't heard of them, I guess that just means you need to go back to school. Jesus was male? Oh shut up. What does that prove? It proves only that Jesus was a man. Are you equating yourself to Jesus? Please.
Settle I think he was just trying to make light of a sometimes uncomfortable to reply to topic

Jesus was male!!

Ahmenhotep IV (Akhonaton) was perhaps the single greatest Thinker and Pharaoh of Egypt, and every indication was that 'he' was transgendered.

Who says any one sex has it over the other?

Not me...

And the rest? The title of the article is no doubt meant to be flame bait as well. It is an attention grabber. It's like an article called, "Do we really need Indians?" You posted it, and you could have changed the title to something a little more relevant.

EDIT: not the main point of course...I'm more concerned with the sexism than the science:)


I posted it as I found it ...period

Wow, man bashing....how very 1980's of you. No, I suppose you don't need men, but then ladies, you would just turn on each other. I know lots of women, and as soon as there are no men around, those claws turn right around and start scratching the other women...

So look at it this way, you need men to keep you from killing each other.


YIN

By the way, this rash is killing me. Anybody have some cream?

But sexism is ok.

Hey now. Admit you're touchy and let's move on. I admitted my own shortcomings.

And as much as the Y chromosome is going down the drain... If you start mixing X's, it'll only be so long before it goes too.

Actually, this mixing thing is what's kept any of the other chromosomes from being a point of failure for a hundred million years. Read the article again.

But its fate was sealed when it took on the mantle of creating males. This probably happened in the early ancestors of mammals, perhaps 100m years ago when a mutation on the ancestor of the Y-chromosome suddenly, and quite by chance, enabled it to switch on the embryonic pathway to male development. Once this happened, the chromosome was doomed. It slowly lost contact with other chromosomes, thus missing out on the interaction that normally allows the shuffling of genes and so unable to properly heal the wounds inflicted by mutations. One by one, its thousands of useful genes were lost until now only 27 remain - and they are under constant threat.
Of all our chromosomes, it is the only one that is permanently locked into the germ cells of men, where the frenzy of cell division and error-prone DNA copying required to keep up the daily output of 150m sperm creates the ideal conditions for mutation.

So the copy-paste of male genes off of Y WOULD do the trick. IF the individual could still breed with normal humans - and we can safely predict that no country's going to foot the bill for their entire population to be altered thus, and especially not anyone else's, so it would pretty much have to work the first time and not be pressured out.

That and for completeness sake, with the standing genes migrated you would probably need to put something BACK where Y was. Probably another X (clone maybe) and call it pair 0. This again is assuming it works.

As for the 'simple' idea. Unless there was a natural replacement for male gametes and delivery systems (meaning it still allowed for two people, a few nights, and really no influence at the time from technology), the point of failure becomes not biological and near-infinitely replaceable, but mechanical and electronic and far less easily substituable. And yes, there are occasional planet-size EMPs out of the aether. Not often, but in a situation like this, it really only takes one. Just something to think about.

And for the record, Jerry, Latta, you two aren't helping.

But sexism is ok.

This wasn't meant as sexism ... it was meant as a warning that we need to
do something about it now instead of waiting until it's to late. So don't even try MARY.

Actually no, I'm not joking. I'm very serious, in fact. Face it, men have been in a superiority position for centuries. In face of what some men have inflicted upon women for generations, I think a little self-derision is a small price to pay. You don't have to fear for us(or me particularly) not being able
to defend ourselves if the need arises.

I'm not one to defend political correctness at all costs. If no offense was intended (and I'm pretty much convinced none was intented in this case) I'm not against a little man-bashing occasionnally.

You mistook my statement about, "You might be joking". I meant, a person may be joking when they deride a gender, or race, but how does everyone know it is a joke, and not meant in earnest? You can say, hey, I'm kidding, but it is still offensive. You may not be against ocasional man-bashing, but I am against woman-bashing. It only stands to reason that I would also oppose man-bashing. Why is sexism still so acceptable? Racism isn't...so what makes us cling to the idea that gender should divide us?

Settle I think he was just trying to make light of a sometimes uncomfortable to reply to topic
Sarcasm is a little hard to hear over the internet...why don't you let HIM declare his statement to be a joke?

Sarcasm is a little hard to hear over the internet...why don't you let HIM declare his statement to be a joke?
You are correct I was just guessing from what I took it to be

Maybe I am just too silly

:fluffle:

Hey now. Admit you're touchy and let's move on. I admitted my own shortcomings.
I missed that. Where did you do that again?

Anywho, I'm done ranting. I know that none of you are gleeful man-bashers, I just wanted to bring it to your attention that a certain amount of anti-male sentiment tends to go un-opposed, but when the tables are turned, (hopefully) women jump all over anti-woman statements.

Now for lunch. :D

This wasn't meant as sexism ... it was meant as a warning that we need to
do something about it now instead of waiting until it's to late. So don't even try MARY.

Mary??

Men were around just as long as women. Women also became tyrants such as Maria Theresa the Austrian Hungarian monarch that tried to take back silesia from the nice Prussians. Also the Y-Chromosome didn't change female embryos to males. The Y-chromosome just chooses the sex to be male. If the sperm carried the X-Chromosome the embryo would be female so an embryo isn't a female until a y-chromsome comes. Also men and women are different. Men can solve 3-D puzzles faster and are better with directions and small print. Females are better at multitasking and hearing. Without males there would be no genetic variation so all the females would be clones and have all the same diseases. so men are just as equally important as females

I missed that. Where did you do that again?


Page Five, post Seventy-Five.

millitant femi-nazi propaganda. :rolleyes:

I have better things to do...

You mistook my statement about, "You might be joking". I meant, a person may be joking when they deride a gender, or race, but how does everyone know it is a joke, and not meant in earnest? You can say, hey, I'm kidding, but it is still offensive. You may not be against ocasional man-bashing, but I am against woman-bashing. It only stands to reason that I would also oppose man-bashing. Why is sexism still so acceptable? Racism isn't...so what makes us cling to the idea that gender should divide us?

I suppose I get your point, although I differ from your opinion when you say you can't know whether someone is kidding or not. It's a whole damn lot harder to do over an internet forum, that I grant you, but I never had any problems figuring it out when dealing with someone in person.

What I'm trying to say is you have to make a difference between the occasionnal wisecrack about (insert gender/race/sexual orientation/ ethcnicity / religion/whatever) and constantly trying to bash said (gender/race/sexual orientation/ ethcnicity / religion/whatever) into the ground. I'm all against all-out sexism, but you know, we can't ALWAYS be offended. If it's any good to you, I reckon Dobbs noted your discomfort with his(her?) remarks, and refrained from making further sexist comments. Just don't get too worked up over it, there's no reason to.

Page Five, post Seventy-Five.
Thanks!

This is all actually in response to a bleed-over of a conversation I was just having with some female co-workers after a workshop on 'inclusion and tolerance'. They started man-bashing and got really worked up when I called them on it. So yes, today I am a little touchy. :D

Wow, man bashing....how very 1980's of you. No, I suppose you don't need men, but then ladies, you would just turn on each other. I know lots of women, and as soon as there are no men around, those claws turn right around and start scratching the other women...

So look at it this way, you need men to keep you from killing each other.


YIN

By the way, this rash is killing me. Anybody have some cream?
what male bashing are you talking about?
i have seen NONE on here, just ranting about it as if it WERE here.

please point out to me where a woman has bashed men on this thread.

Mary??

Sorry you aggravated me ... just a name I use at times like that

If it's any good to you, I reckon Dobbs noted your discomfort with his(her?) remarks, and refrained from making further sexist comments. Just don't get too worked up over it, there's no reason to.

Thanks for the assist Skalador. I don't usually make a point of establishing my gender in these forums, as it usually isn't truly pertinent. Today I made that exception, sorry to confuse anybody. Just call me 'Dobbs', that'll do nicely.

Sinuhue, are we okay or what?

Men were around just as long as women. Women also became tyrants such as Maria Theresa the Austrian Hungarian monarch that tried to take back silesia from the nice Prussians. Also the Y-Chromosome didn't change female embryos to males. The Y-chromosome just chooses the sex to be male. If the sperm carried the X-Chromosome the embryo would be female so an embryo isn't a female until a y-chromsome comes. Also men and women are different. Men can solve 3-D puzzles faster and are better with directions and small print. Females are better at multitasking and hearing. Without males there would be no genetic variation so all the females would be clones and have all the same diseases. so men are just as equally important as females

News flash ... ALL embryo's start out female. Then the type of chromosome
that is added determines what sex the child will develop into.

I'm all for sexual equality, you know, but this is ridiculous. Just because men oppressed women for centuries does not give you the right to speak about us like that. We're equal, and that's that.

Its kinda like making a cake ... if you have a vanilla cake mix and want a
chocolate cake then you must add chocolate or else you end up with a
vanilla cake.

News flash ... ALL embryo's start out female. Then the type of chromosome
that is added determines what sex the child will develop into.
Hmm if the sex is not determined yet how is the “default” female?

i believe this is slightly biased, i mean so many in the begginning of the thread kept saying men cause wars and the like, so the answer would be to get rid of them, not try to save them...i mean sure men are causing war now, but in all the history that homo sapiens will have, we're relatively in the stone age, if you will. and on the one who doesnt like racism, im not trying to be an *ss or anything, im just curious, but does that mean you dont like poeple like Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle, cuz they do make racist jokes, and thus encourage racism... oh and to those that say "men are so frustrating sometimes", i'd like to say so can women(im sure you know, but feel i must say it)... and to those men giveing immature answers to "what are they good for" questions, leave now, i think the women are looking for serious conversationists...

brought to you by...suprise...a man

Its kinda like making a cake ... if you have a vanilla cake mix and want a
chocolate cake then you must add chocolate or else you end up with a
vanilla cake.
But if it has NO sex (because it is not determined yet) then it would be neuter or something neutral

If NO determining factor in sex of the child is made yet then how could it be female … one of the choices

( see what you mean but it doesn’t quite make sense)

I suppose I get your point, although I differ from your opinion when you say you can't know whether someone is kidding or not. It's a whole damn lot harder to do over an internet forum, that I grant you, but I never had any problems figuring it out when dealing with someone in person.

What I'm trying to say is you have to make a difference between the occasionnal wisecrack about (insert gender/race/sexual orientation/ ethcnicity / religion/whatever) and constantly trying to bash said (gender/race/sexual orientation/ ethcnicity / religion/whatever) into the ground.
I don't really agree...the difference is in only in the degree. I'm Native, but I'm also half Irish. For some reason, that seems to encourage people to tell me Native jokes. They bother me, and I make no bones about letting people know that. Of course, there is the context to take into account. A friend might get away with telling me a joke about Natives. A stranger wouldn't. Nor would I allow a joke like that, told by ANYONE to be uncontested in a wider public forum. I know I sound preachy, and yes, I'm taking it a little far, but I'm trying to make a point. Racism is bad, and we all know it, and we all try to be aware of it. Sexism, however, is generally only thought of in terms of male sexism, or so called 'lesbian' sexism. That's crap. Plenty of women I know say things, and do things (like grabbing a male co-worker's butt) that are never remarked upon. Yet if a man did those things, alarm bells would be sounding. ALL OF IT needs to stop. Harassment always starts as jokes, and builds up. I choose to speak out about things as soon as they happen, because I've been on the receiving end of that build up, both racially and in terms of my gender (female).

I'm all against all-out sexism, but you know, we can't ALWAYS be offended. If it's any good to you, I reckon Dobbs noted your discomfort with his(her?) remarks, and refrained from making further sexist comments. Just don't get too worked up over it, there's no reason to.
I'm not emotionally worked up...just intellectually. Like I said, I'm taking it to extremes, but only to make a point. It IS something to worry about in a wider context, because most people will just put up with negative things said about the group they belong to. It's this kind of 'blind eye' attitude that encourages bullying, harassment and insensitivity to race, gender, age, disability etc. etc. etc. It doesn't take much to think about what you say before you say it, and realise you may be saying something hurtful. I don't think that is overly PC...I just think it's respectful.

Do you get where I'm coming from? (I'm talking about a wider issue of course, not just this thread)

I'm all for sexual equality, you know, but this is ridiculous. Just because men oppressed women for centuries does not give you the right to speak about us like that. We're equal, and that's that.

Thats why men still get paid more for doing the same job. I do admit that
there has been progress, but we aren't where we should be.

Sorry you aggravated me ... just a name I use at times like that
Now I'm interested in the history of THAT! I think I could use a name like that for people who annoy me...it's so understated, they wonder if there is a deeper insult hidden in it...

Well, Mary I am, I guess!

Thanks for the assist Skalador. I don't usually make a point of establishing my gender in these forums, as it usually isn't truly pertinent. Today I made that exception, sorry to confuse anybody. Just call me 'Dobbs', that'll do nicely.

Sinuhue, are we okay or what?
Of course we are. I'm sorry if it felt like I was going for the throat. Peace.

Hmm if the sex is not determined yet how is the “default” female?

Thats a question for folks trained in reproduction

millitant femi-nazi propaganda. :rolleyes:

I have better things to do...

what here is millitant femi-nazi propaganda? is SCIENCE now suddenly feminist or not?

But if it has NO sex (because it is not determined yet) then it would be neuter or something neutral

If NO determining factor in sex of the child is made yet then how could it be female … one of the choices

( see what you mean but it doesn’t quite make sense)

I didn't make that up ... check it out

Thats a question for folks trained in reproduction
Then why did you make the claim if they are making the call (un supported I may add)

Sorry not trying to be a jerk but it just doesn’t make sense … if sex has not been determined then it CANT be one of the sexes (and sense it has a y chromosome sense conception that could be a descriptor for “male” so it has had at least one of the sexual characteristics determining its sex … may not have the organs yet to be male … but unlikely to have ovaries either)

I didn't make that up ... check it out
I would like too but you provided no linky to your claim

I'm all for sexual equality, you know, but this is ridiculous. Just because men oppressed women for centuries does not give you the right to speak about us like that. We're equal, and that's that.
where was it suggested that men are not or should not be equal? the right to speak about men in WHAT way?

Yes, you need males, because dicks f**k pussies and assholes.

Well, unless someone wants to strap something on...

i believe this is slightly biased, i mean so many in the begginning of the thread kept saying men cause wars and the like, so the answer would be to get rid of them, not try to save them...i mean sure men are causing war now, but in all the history that homo sapiens will have, we're relatively in the stone age, if you will. and on the one who doesnt like racism, im not trying to be an *ss or anything, im just curious, but does that mean you dont like poeple like Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle, cuz they do make racist jokes, and thus encourage racism... oh and to those that say "men are so frustrating sometimes", i'd like to say so can women(im sure you know, but feel i must say it)... and to those men giveing immature answers to "what are they good for" questions, leave now, i think the women are looking for serious conversationists...

brought to you by...suprise...a man

I prefer commedians that can get a laugh without bring racism or sexism into the mix.

what here is millitant femi-nazi propaganda? is SCIENCE now suddenly feminist or not?

My guess is that any science not dedicated to launching huge towering cylinders of steel up into the air would be considered 'feminist' by Eudeminea...

Yes, you need males, because dicks f**k pussies and assholes.

Well, unless someone wants to strap something on...

'Tact' isn't found in your dictionary at home, is it, Gun?

and on the one who doesnt like racism, im not trying to be an *ss or anything, im just curious, but does that mean you dont like poeple like Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle, cuz they do make racist jokes, and thus encourage racism...

I'm not familiar with Dave Chappelle, but I have heard Chris Rock. Some of what he says is very funny, and very political. When he starts bashing whites, or blacks, or anyone else, I am NOT amused. A lot of what he says is not so much racist as it is a biting commentary on the way things are. In any case, I wouldn't run around repeating his jokes to the general public.

I would like too but you provided no linky to your claim

It says so right in my article, otherwise there's aways the internet

I don't really agree...the difference is in only in the degree. I'm Native, but I'm also half Irish. For some reason, that seems to encourage people to tell me Native jokes. They bother me, and I make no bones about letting people know that. Of course, there is the context to take into account. A friend might get away with telling me a joke about Natives. A stranger wouldn't. Nor would I allow a joke like that, told by ANYONE to be uncontested in a wider public forum. I know I sound preachy, and yes, I'm taking it a little far, but I'm trying to make a point. Racism is bad, and we all know it, and we all try to be aware of it. Sexism, however, is generally only thought of in terms of male sexism, or so called 'lesbian' sexism. That's crap. Plenty of women I know say things, and do things (like grabbing a male co-worker's butt) that are never remarked upon. Yet if a man did those things, alarm bells would be sounding. ALL OF IT needs to stop. Harassment always starts as jokes, and builds up. I choose to speak out about things as soon as they happen, because I've been on the receiving end of that build up, both racially and in terms of my gender (female).


I'm not emotionally worked up...just intellectually. Like I said, I'm taking it to extremes, but only to make a point. It IS something to worry about in a wider context, because most people will just put up with negative things said about the group they belong to. It's this kind of 'blind eye' attitude that encourages bullying, harassment and insensitivity to race, gender, age, disability etc. etc. etc. It doesn't take much to think about what you say before you say it, and realise you may be saying something hurtful. I don't think that is overly PC...I just think it's respectful.

Do you get where I'm coming from? (I'm talking about a wider issue of course, not just this thread)

I do get where you're going. But I'm just afraid of having to always weight off what I say "just in case" it offends someone. I'm not about to stop myself from the occasionnal wisecrack, neither do I expect others to do so.

Where I do agree with you, is that if someone ever comes to me and tells me something I said offended him, I'll ask him to forgive me and say no offense was intended, and watch myself when around that person. I expect as much from everyone. And I also expect the person to whom I'm complaining about possible racism/sexism/etc. can take it without getting on the defensive.

That works fine when you hang out with a crowd that's usually sensible and adult enough to discuss serious things like racism/sexism/etc comfortably. Which, I realize, is a privilege not everyone is entitled to and that I'm happy to have.

And, unless otherwise disproved, I like to assume most poeple can discuss serious issues like this without getting emtional or extreme... even if it's only for greater good ;)

what here is millitant femi-nazi propaganda? is SCIENCE now suddenly feminist or not?
Science can be as biased as the people doing it. There is 'creationist' science, there is 'white supremacy' science, hell, there could even be, 'underwater basket weaving' science...

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics" (who the heck said that?)

In any case, I don't think the article was militant femi-nazi propoganda...just a little weird.

I would like too but you provided no linky to your claim

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073031216/student_view0/exercise16/androgen_insensitivity_syndrom.html

Just search for 'default gender'. I don't recommend 'default sex' :P

If someone happens to be too lazy to click, it says:

"In normal fetal development, females are the ‘default’ gender meaning that unless the embryological tissues are given other signals, the child will be female." -- Biology Laboratory Manual (online) Darrell S. Vodopich, Baylor University, Randy Moore, University of Minnesota--Minneapolis

Do We Really Need Women?

If someone happens to be too lazy to click, it says:

"In normal fetal development, females are the ‘default’ gender meaning that unless the embryological tissues are given other signals, the child will be female." -- Biology Laboratory Manual (online) Darrell S. Vodopich, Baylor University, Randy Moore, University of Minnesota--Minneapolis
Come on...we should have all learned this in high school biology...is anyone really trying to refute it?

Do We Really Need Women?

yes

Come on...we should have all learned this in high school biology...is anyone really trying to refute it?

<cough> Have you seen what some schools are teaching in their science classes?

If it wasn't for men, lesbians wouldn't have anyone to remind them how cool they are.

Well, unless you want to be penetrated by a turkey baster [...].

That's the funniest thing i've read in a long while...You're going to hell for that one :cool:

Science can be as biased as the people doing it. There is 'creationist' science, there is 'white supremacy' science, hell, there could even be, 'underwater basket weaving' science...

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics" (who the heck said that?)

In any case, I don't think the article was militant femi-nazi propoganda...just a little weird.
yeah it was weird but im in no position to know if its crap or not. it doesnt make much sense to me that we would be rushing down an evolutionary dead end but i guess other species have done so in the past.

in any case it makes no sense to me to worry about something that may or may not occur that far into the future.

Sooo...I wonder how many people actually read the entire article before posting? That would have eliminated a lot of the problems, although I'm sure some people would have just decided to bash each other.

If you look at the article for what it really is, then we should be talking about the possibility of a deteriorating Y-chromosome, not if women need men.

So in staying with what the article REALLY means.....the Y-chromosome will not deteriorate, at least I don't think so. Recent studies have shown that the reason some people think the Y is "dying off" is because of a lack of understanding of chromosome pairing. All chomosomes are damaged as time goes by, but they have learned to repair themselves. Because women have two copies of X, their XX chromosomes can repair each other, but men with XY were thought to not be able to repair the damaged Y chromosome. But research has shown that Y is smarter then we give it credit for. It has actually made "mirrored chromosomes" which enable it to repair itself! The human body truly is an amazing place!

Sources: (not that anyone will read these, but you never know....)
Y Repair?- http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-06-18-Y-Chromosome-repair_x.htm (an article I had to read for class)
The Guardian Article- http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0%2C4273%2C4240155%2C00.html
Surprises for "Y"-http://www.txtwriter.com/onscience/Articles/ychromosome.html

But if it has NO sex (because it is not determined yet) then it would be neuter or something neutral

If NO determining factor in sex of the child is made yet then how could it be female … one of the choices

( see what you mean but it doesn’t quite make sense)

I really don't know the WHY of it ... I'm just saying that is how it is.

Originally posted by Ashmoria
what male bashing are you talking about?
i have seen NONE on here, just ranting about it as if it WERE here.

please point out to me where a woman has bashed men on this thread.

Oh, how about this?

Originally Posted by Dobbs Town
Well, keep them around for those certain things, then send 'em home. Especially if they're being no fun, which can and does indeed happen all too often.

You're going to hell for that one :cool:

Are you turkey-blasterophobe? :D

The article that started this thread is pseudo-scientific junk, though it is based on real scientific research and it does include some grains of truth. But the Y-chromosone is in no danger, it merly behaves differently from the other chromosones in a human body, which is why there is some confusion.

As for men being more violent, etc, well there was a reason Queen Mary was known as Bloody Mary. In proportion between male rulers and female rulers I believe that the female ones are at least as vicios or even more so than their male counterparts.

Although I do agree that we don't need men anymore, say that every single child born from now on was female, that would still give us over 100 years before there would be serious problems, and I agree with Hans Moravec that by then robots will have taken over and humanity will be obsolete. The only problem would be that not enough women study comp sci, at my current university the student body is slightly over 50% female, but the comp sci department is less than 5% female. And that is with several significant scholarships only available to female compsci majors... the same problem with engineering and math, although less pronounced. Without males the shortages in those fields would be extreme.
And you can't tell me that there are so few females because they are being discriminated against, in fact if anything the opposite holds true. And for those that argue there are less female political leaders, less female CEO's, and that women get paid less, that is true, but that is becuase males are naturaly more competetive, so they have a better chance of getting a job that is highly contested, like the presidency or becoming a CEO. In addition to that males are more likely to haggle with their boss for better pay, and that is exactly equal to the proportion by which males get better paid.

I did … what your article said is


The y chromosome is like a switch (female being the default if the switch is not thrown)


News flash ... ALL embryo's start out female. Then the type of chromosome
that is added determines what sex the child will develop into.


Now that is NOT the same as them STARTING out female as you claim (though is fairly close to your cake analogy)

Because the switch is thrown at conception the default may be female but after the egg and sperm combine the switch IS or IS not thrown … either way it is what it is right there … so it STARTS being an embryo as one or the other




http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sit...ty_syndrom.html

Just search for 'default gender'. I don't recommend 'default sex' :P

If someone happens to be too lazy to click, it says:

"In normal fetal development, females are the ‘default’ gender meaning that unless the embryological tissues are given other signals, the child will be female." -- Biology Laboratory Manual (online) Darrell S. Vodopich, Baylor University, Randy Moore, University of Minnesota—Minneapolis

Same with yours … that is what it WILL develop unless told otherwise (like before with the switch) but just because it will develop female if the “switch” is not thrown does not mean it has a sex then … just that it is the likely course without a change in events

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073031216/student_view0/exercise16/androgen_insensitivity_syndrom.html

Just search for 'default gender'. I don't recommend 'default sex' :P

If someone happens to be too lazy to click, it says:

"In normal fetal development, females are the ‘default’ gender meaning that unless the embryological tissues are given other signals, the child will be female." -- Biology Laboratory Manual (online) Darrell S. Vodopich, Baylor University, Randy Moore, University of Minnesota--Minneapolis

I think thats more or less what I have been saying

The first post of this thread.... douh, what shit.
I dont REALLY know, but i think i have read it before, it has to be an text from the 80´s.... afair
Well and its a shitty text. You know i could also proove you that women are in fact men with an xtra x-chromosome, its all a thing of the viewpoint. There are even "scientist" who can be paid to make statistics which prove anything.

We need men and men are not better or worse than women. Thats it....

Nearly all the machine were invented by men.

Ina world without men, there would be a shortage of engineers and other such professions which require skills on which men have a monopoly.

Until fairly recently in civilized history, social convention dictated that women not pursue higher education and skilled occupations. You know that as well as I do, fooly. :rolleyes:

As for the issue of "default gender," my understanding is that all humans quite literally begin their development as females until the SRY gene is "switched on," resulting in incomplete female characteristics in some areas of the body. Why do you think men have nipples but no mammary glands?

Originally posted by Ashmoria
what male bashing are you talking about?
i have seen NONE on here, just ranting about it as if it WERE here.

please point out to me where a woman has bashed men on this thread.

Oh, how about this?

Originally Posted by Dobbs Town
Well, keep them around for those certain things, then send 'em home. Especially if they're being no fun, which can and does indeed happen all too often.

So I'm bashing if I advocate they go home after sex? Especially if they're no fun?

Give me a break, this is ludicrous.

And...technically...I'm not female by some people's standards.

Grrr. Shoulda known better than to post in the freakin' first place...

The first post of this thread.... douh, what shit.
I dont REALLY know, but i think i have read it before, it has to be an text from the 80´s.... afair
Well and its a shitty text. You know i could also proove you that women are in fact men with an xtra x-chromosome, its all a thing of the viewpoint. There are even "scientist" who can be paid to make statistics which prove anything.

We need men and men are not better or worse than women. Thats it....

I never stated that I thught one was better then the other

Originally posted by Ashmoria
what male bashing are you talking about?
i have seen NONE on here, just ranting about it as if it WERE here.

please point out to me where a woman has bashed men on this thread.

Oh, how about this?

Originally Posted by Dobbs Town
Well, keep them around for those certain things, then send 'em home. Especially if they're being no fun, which can and does indeed happen all too often.
yeah i read that one, i dint find it offensive. you must be VERY delicate to find the suggestion that men can be fun and not fun BASHING. im 47 years old and i find it to be true of every kind of human being on this earth.

some people prefer to live alone.

and you need to check further on dobb's gender.

Interestingly enough, it is the very fact that men have one X and a Y cromosome that gives men a much greater chance of having above-normal intelligence. Problem is, there is also a MUCH (very much) greater chance of having lower intelligence. This still does not make up more than about a low percentage, but it still counts for something. The reason for this is that without a second X or second Y cromosome, there is no "back-up", which our cells use to "correct" mutations. I'm not saying that men are more intelligent than women, actually because of this there is a greater chance that a man is of a lower intelligence than a woman, but the fact remains that because of this, you find more men with abnormal intelligence, both ways.

Sooo...I wonder how many people actually read the entire article before posting? That would have eliminated a lot of the problems, although I'm sure some people would have just decided to bash each other.

If you look at the article for what it really is, then we should be talking about the possibility of a deteriorating Y-chromosome, not if women need men.

So in staying with what the article REALLY means.....the Y-chromosome will not deteriorate, at least I don't think so. Recent studies have shown that the reason some people think the Y is "dying off" is because of a lack of understanding of chromosome pairing. All chomosomes are damaged as time goes by, but they have learned to repair themselves. Because women have two copies of X, their XX chromosomes can repair each other, but men with XY were thought to not be able to repair the damaged Y chromosome. But research has shown that Y is smarter then we give it credit for. It has actually made "mirrored chromosomes" which enable it to repair itself! The human body truly is an amazing place!

Sources: (not that anyone will read these, but you never know....)
Y Repair?- http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-06-18-Y-Chromosome-repair_x.htm (an article I had to read for class)
The Guardian Article- http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0%2C4273%2C4240155%2C00.html
Surprises for "Y"-http://www.txtwriter.com/onscience/Articles/ychromosome.html

Interesting

So I'm bashing if I advocate they go home after sex? Especially if they're no fun?

Give me a break, this is ludicrous.

And...technically...I'm not female by some people's standards.

Grrr. Shoulda known better than to post in the freakin' first place...


Oh stop Dobbs town, I wasn't saying you were being aweful or anything, it's just she was being holier than thou in that "Where has anybody bashed anybody" way. I'm saying that yeah, there were insults flying, do they offend me? No, why should they, I don't date women. So by some peoples standards I guess I'm more of a girl than you are. So lets go to a ball game and drink. lol

The Guardian Article- http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0%2C4273%2C4240155%2C00.html


That was an extremely interesting article. Some of it was old news, but I was floored by this statement:

"the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay.

I recognize that homosexuality is a genetic thing, but I had no idea that the mother's immune system would react to the Y chromosone that way (over time).

[Please, if that makes you angry, read the article before responding to me. Then you'll actually know what I'm talking about.]

I think thats more or less what I have been saying
k see you skipped my post ...

essentially said That is the default development track ... does not mean it IS female rather that is the default track


That’s like saying the default train track is to the left … if the switch thrown to the right … but even though the train is 2 miles away from the split telling owners that it IS on the left track

The left may be default

Does not mean the train is there yet

I just sort of have a feeling that this thread was posted by a woman.. Curious.

And...technically...I'm not female by some people's standards.

...
the polite question is "which gender do you consider yourself to be?"

as far as im concerned its your call.

so do you think of yourself as female?

So I'm bashing if I advocate they go home after sex? Especially if they're no fun?

Give me a break, this is ludicrous.

And...technically...I'm not female by some people's standards.

Grrr. Shoulda known better than to post in the freakin' first place...

This was meant to simulate a friendly discussion on this topic, so you are
just as welcome here as anyone else.

That was an extremely interesting article. Some of it was old news, but I was floored by this statement:

"the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay.

I recognize that homosexuality is a genetic thing, but I had no idea that the mother's immune system would react to the Y chromosone that way (over time).

[Please, if that makes you angry, read the article before responding to me. Then you'll actually know what I'm talking about.]

Doesn't make me angry at all :). I just used those three sources because I found them interesting.

I just sort of have a feeling that this thread was posted by a woman.. Curious.

Shouldn't make a difference. The article didn't really want you to think about if we needed men or not, I think it was trying to bring a "supposed" problem to our attention.

Like I said before, this *shouldn't* have become a men-women bashing thread, but more a thread for the discussion of the information presented. Oh well....

the polite question is "which gender do you consider yourself to be?"

as far as im concerned its your call.

so do you think of yourself as female?

Yes.

yeah i read that one, i dint find it offensive. you must be VERY delicate to find the suggestion that men can be fun and not fun BASHING. im 47 years old and i find it to be true of every kind of human being on this earth.

some people prefer to live alone.

and you need to check further on dobb's gender.


I know what transgendered means, it means Dobbs as lived on both sides of the fence so to speak. Which makes her qualified to asnwer questions related
to this article in ways non transgendered people are unable to relate to or
understand.

Origionally Posted by Ashmoria
yeah i read that one, i dint find it offensive. you must be VERY delicate to find the suggestion that men can be fun and not fun BASHING. im 47 years old and i find it to be true of every kind of human being on this earth.

First of all, you asked if men were being bashed, not whether or not they were being bashed to a point that you would find it offensive.

Secondly, interesting, rather than deal with the fact that I pointed out something to you that could be taken that way you just insult the messenger. What a typical 47 year old you are. (By the way....If you take that as offensive, I guess you must be VERY delicate) <grin>

This was meant to simulate a friendly discussion on this topic, so you are
just as welcome here as anyone else.

Thank you.

k see you skipped my post ...

essentially said That is the default development track ... does not mean it IS female rather that is the default track


That’s like saying the default train track is to the left … if the switch thrown to the right … but even though the train is 2 miles away from the split telling owners that it IS on the left track

The left may be default

Does not mean the train is there yet

I didn't skip your post ... my response just never posted for some strange reason ... sorry.

Thank you.



You are quite Welcome

As for the issue of "default gender," my understanding is that all humans quite literally begin their development as females until the SRY gene is "switched on," resulting in incomplete female characteristics in some areas of the body. Why do you think men have nipples but no mammary glands?

That was my understanding too. Weird to think that I was a girl in my early foetal days. :p

Anyway, that's a very interesting article. As a male, I don't really mind the humorous comments from all you ladies who find the idea of the extinction of man amusing. I'm assuming most of you are not mindless sexists, and if any of you are I don't feel insulted by the rantings of the moronic. ;)

I do faintly resent the generalisations, though. If on average men may be more violent than women, that doesn't hold true for me. I'm as non-violent as they come, pacifist, vegetarian, antispecist; I would never dream of stepping on a spider - I put them gently outside. And I dislike saying hurtful things to people.

As absurd as generalisation are, though, it's always seemed to me men are, on the whole, more sentimental than most of us would like to admit - and that a lot of men would balk at the cold pragmatism some if not many women appear capable of. Which goes against the usual stereotype. Feel free to shoot that impression down in flames, of course. As I said, all generalisations are inherently absurd... <= Even that one, probably. ;)

I just sort of have a feeling that this thread was posted by a woman.. Curious.

What are you implying by that?

I didn't skip your post ... my response just never posted for some strange reason ... sorry.
Its fine I have my post per page view changed too (recently) I like seeing more but it means sometimes I post something and it looks middle of the page when it really is like last post on previous page and tends to get browsed over
:)

No problem

I just think that if evolution is pushing us into a redefinition of gender, then...so be it. We're not carved of stone, after all. We're malleable, adaptable...and we should embrace change, not try to forestall it.

Like David Bowie sang,

'Turn and face the strange
Ch-ch-changes'

Doesn't make me angry at all :). I just used those three sources because I found them interesting.



Shouldn't make a difference. The article didn't really want you to think about if we needed men or not, I think it was trying to bring a "supposed" problem to our attention.

Like I said before, this *shouldn't* have become a men-women bashing thread, but more a thread for the discussion of the information presented . Oh well....

Which is how this thread was meant

God Forbid ... a Woman I guess

women shouldn never be president because they would fuck up the country more than it already is.

Its fine I have my post per page view changed too (recently) I like seeing more but it means sometimes I post something and it looks middle of the page when it really is like last post on previous page and tends to get browsed over
:)

No problem

Thank You for your understanding and for adding your thoughts

I just think that if evolution is pushing us into a redefinition of gender, then...so be it. We're not carved of stone, after all. We're malleable, adaptable...and we should embrace change, not try to forestall it.

Like David Bowie sang,

'Turn and face the strange
Ch-ch-changes'
Leads to the though if males slowly morph towards females … and they eventually combine (lets leave out specifics on HOW procreation takes place)

Would there be any true female? Or is the definition of the sexes kind of like a “good” “bad” thing where the definition really depends on the other to define it (e.g. good is the absence of bad and bad the lack of good) being there will only be 1 gender …

Sorry probably not clear on it but … ehh

Thank You for your understanding and for adding your thoughts
:fluffle: my pleasure as always

women shouldn never be president because they would fuck up the country more than it already is.

Shame on you ... but sense you brought it up ... I guess the question is ...
would we mess it up more then its already been messed up ... by men?

Sorry just could resist that comment ( slaps hand ) Bad Hand :eek:

Which is how this thread was meant

Oh I know, haha...I never said anyone in particular got it off track (especially not you)

Shame on you ... but sense you brought it up ... I guess the question is ...
would we mess it up more then its already been messed up ... by men?
Dont know if it is possible to know ... at least scientifically (to truly know you would have to reproduce ALL the conditions EXCEPT for 1 variable the sex of the president)

Ehh oh well

Shame on you ... but sense you brought it up ... I guess the question is ...
would we mess it up more then its already been messed up ... by men?


Men hunt
women nest
it is the fact of life

yes you would mess it more because you would make some kind of fucked up law that will fuck everything and everybody up.

That is why hiliary clinton will never be president

Leads to the though if males slowly morph towards females … and they eventually combine (lets leave out specifics on HOW procreation takes place)

Would there be any true female? Or is the definition of the sexes kind of like a “good” “bad” thing where the definition really depends on the other to define it (e.g. good is the absence of bad and bad the lack of good) being there will only be 1 gender …

Sorry probably not clear on it but … ehh

Yeah, we'll have to abandon notions of dualism, no doubt. Oh well, it served it's purpose, now we'll just have to work out another value system. No biggie.

Origionally Posted by Ashmoria
yeah i read that one, i dint find it offensive. you must be VERY delicate to find the suggestion that men can be fun and not fun BASHING. im 47 years old and i find it to be true of every kind of human being on this earth.

First of all, you asked if men were being bashed, not whether or not they were being bashed to a point that you would find it offensive.

Secondly, interesting, rather than deal with the fact that I pointed out something to you that could be taken that way you just insult the messenger. What a typical 47 year old you are. (By the way....If you take that as offensive, I guess you must be VERY delicate) <grin>
hahahaha
i do not agree that that was an example of male bashing
anymore than i found it to be woman bashing that someone suggested as a joke that women need men because men do the jobs that would break womens fingernails.

i find NO male bashing on this thread. just a few silly attempts at lightening up the tone.

as a woman, ive heard (and maybe participated in) some severe male bashing in my time. just as sinuhue has said she has been exposed to. it ugly and its meant to be ugly. its not a little joke taken the wrong way.

Ok... Where to begin...
First off, it seems like it would be best for this to go to the spam forum. No one is trying to actually debate anything, they may start that way, but as they read into the bashing comments, they get consumed with the urge to defend their gender.
Secondly, I don't believe that the original poster was trying to create this controversy, but she certainly helped fuel it. Mabey she just didn't realize how some of the things she posted in the original article could be misinterpreted. (Look at the first line for an excellent example.)
Thirdly, I would expect more from you people. The people usually on this forum are kind and considering, think about both sides of the issue, and don't hide behind things like, "its the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!! It MUST BE TRUE!!" Come on, we know that many things in science are not nessicarily right. Thats why the theory of gravity is still a theory.
Fourthly, the notion that an all-female world would have less violence and war is absurd. It wouldn't be the kind of warfare we're used to, but it would be there. I'm thinking more of a psychological warfare, that could even include torture and mass exicutions. I'm not saying that these thingswould happen just because women are in charge, I'm just saying that the kind of warfare I predicted would probably include these things more then the kind we have today.
Fifth and finally, don't EVER tell me women are better, kinder, more caring, or more compassionate then men. You don't have to hang out with high school girls all day. :headbang:
Thank you for reading, please stop bashing.

Men hunt
women nest
it is the fact of life

yes you would mess it more because you would make some kind of fucked up law that will fuck everything and everybody up.

That is why hiliary clinton will never be president

This thread has nothing to do with Hilary Clinton. Women may nest, and men may hunt, but what happens when there's no call for hunting?

Oh I know, haha...I never said anyone in particular got it off track (especially not you)

Well have tried to referee as much as possible ... Thank You for noticing

M'kay, to all those who say 'women are less agressive than men', did you ever go to high school?
True, women are generaly more intelligent about their agression than most men, but seriously, a good few women have a cruelty streak to match %50 of psychotic male dictators.
Anyway, a world without men woudnt last very long, IE: No babies, unless you want to work on some serious genetic engineering.

No one is trying to actually debate

Not true a few of us have. You should say "Most of the posters are not actually debating"

Yeah, we'll have to abandon notions of dualism, no doubt. Oh well, it served it's purpose, now we'll just have to work out another value system. No biggie.
Yup suppose we wont really understand until it happens .. dualism is so engrained in EVERYTHING we do

Men hunt
women nest
it is the fact of life

yes you would mess it more because you would make some kind of fucked up law that will fuck everything and everybody up.

That is why hiliary clinton will never be president

I must ask you to please refrane from using the F word in this thread or else
I must ask you to leave... your choice.

I'm offended and I feel bashed that you do not agree with me. <Grin>

Ok, sorry to not take this post very seriously, but frankly I would be MUCH more worried if people were talking about getting rid of ice-cream or soccer.

Yup suppose we wont really understand until it happens .. dualism is so engrained in EVERYTHING we do

*chuckles*

It's funny, but I've always felt that as a species, we're on the brink of new consciousness or specieswide disaster... and possibly both, sooner than later. Whatever happens, I think this third millenium will see the emergence of a malleable third gender, which may ( I say, MAY) supplant the existing two.

It's nothing that frightens me, though; we play the cards we're dealt. If Nature dictates, who am I to oppose (apart from my thumbs, I guess)?

Of course we're necessary! Who else would show you what not to do what with a paper shredder in a way that you'll pay attention to?!

Not true a few of us have. You should say "Most of the posters are not actually debating"

nope, Im most certainly not, I just like posting randomly in threads because Im bored at work and feeling lonely, sorry. :(

I'm offended and I feel bashed that you do not agree with me. <Grin>

Ok, sorry to not take this post very seriously, but frankly I would be MUCH more worried if people were talking about getting rid of ice-cream or soccer.

I've never played soccer, but I do love my ice cream

*chuckles*

It's funny, but I've always felt that as a species, we're on the brink of new consciousness or specieswide disaster... and possibly both, sooner than later. Whatever happens, I think this third millenium will see the emergence of a malleable third gender, which may ( I say, MAY) supplant the existing two.

It's nothing that frightens me, though; we play the cards we're dealt. If Nature dictates, who am I to oppose (apart from my thumbs, I guess)?
Yeah no kidding … if evolution holds true the evolution of such a gender would mean that it has some strengths or purpose for being … making humanity more adapted for its environment then ever before. Why would you hate such a strengthening of the species?

Not true a few of us have. You should say "Most of the posters are not actually debating"

True, but those are few and far between. I have seen a few, and from what I've read they're good, but they are mostly ignored by other posters. Mabey someone should start a seperate thread that explores the actual question posted, that smart people could take part in.

Ok... Where to begin...
First off, it seems like it would be best for this to go to the spam forum. No one is trying to actually debate anything, they may start that way, but as they read into the bashing comments, they get consumed with the urge to defend their gender.
Secondly, I don't believe that the original poster was trying to create this controversy, but she certainly helped fuel it. Mabey she just didn't realize how some of the things she posted in the original article could be misinterpreted. (Look at the first line for an excellent example.)
Thirdly, I would expect more from you people. The people usually on this forum are kind and considering, think about both sides of the issue, and don't hide behind things like, "its the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!! It MUST BE TRUE!!" Come on, we know that many things in science are not nessicarily right. Thats why the theory of gravity is still a theory.
Fourthly, the notion that an all-female world would have less violence and war is absurd. It wouldn't be the kind of warfare we're used to, but it would be there. I'm thinking more of a psychological warfare, that could even include torture and mass exicutions. I'm not saying that these thingswould happen just because women are in charge, I'm just saying that the kind of warfare I predicted would probably include these things more then the kind we have today.
Fifth and finally, don't EVER tell me women are better, kinder, more caring, or more compassionate then men. You don't have to hang out with high school girls all day. :headbang:
Thank you for reading, please stop bashing.
the debate on whether or not the y chromosome is going to decay into defacto male extinction in the next 100,000 years would last maybe 3 posts. we just dont have that many genetics experts here and besides its not all that interesting now is it. more of a "hmmm who'da thunk it" kind of thing

but the question of the benefits (or detriments) of what we see as maleness IS interesting. if men were to be evolutionarily eliminated from the earth, would we need to recreate them just to get the benefits back? would we miss too much and just what is it that we WOULD miss.

its like a science fiction question. if we some day evolve away from maleness would the world be better or worse?

people seem to be assuming that im saying HELL YEAH LETS GET RID OF THEM. im not. i find masculinity to be a benefit to the world. i just refused to say that. doesnt ANYONE else find there to be something good about men other than what lies between their legs?

i find your comments on women and violence to be very insightful.

Yeah no kidding … if evolution holds true the evolution of such a gender would mean that it has some strengths or purpose for being … making humanity more adapted for its environment then ever before. Why would you hate such a strengthening of the species?

I would say that Transgendered folks are uniquely qualified to make
comments concerning the third sex question. Much more so then any of the rest of us.

True, but those are few and far between. I have seen a few, and from what I've read they're good, but they are mostly ignored by other posters. Mabey someone should start a seperate thread that explores the actual question posted, that smart people could take part in.

I'm sorry if I have ignored you, please you are very welcome to enlighten
us ... although I admit I'm not really sure how to take the " smart people "
comment in your post.

Yeah no kidding … if evolution holds true the evolution of such a gender would mean that it has some strengths or purpose for being … making humanity more adapted for its environment then ever before. Why would you hate such a strengthening of the species?

I've heard that as their environment toxified in the 20th century, a number of species of newts and salamanders crossbred with each other, resulting in new strains of heartier amphibians more resistant to environmental poisoning. Interestingly, these newer strains reproduce asexually, parthinogenically, with no male offspring.

Who's to say it couldn't happen further up the food chain, eh?

LOL

True, but those are few and far between. I have seen a few, and from what I've read they're good, but they are mostly ignored by other posters. Mabey someone should start a seperate thread that explores the actual question posted, that smart people could take part in.

Ooooh, a 'smart people only' thread? Good luck on that one. I presume you'll be there, as well...?

I dont get the first post did it prove that males started with more than 27 genes? Have they found cave man from 30,000 years ago with say 29 genes?

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.

And why didnt it mention the fact that maybe a mutation will occur that benifits males? Not all mutation is bad, some mutations are good for a species.

And besides I kick the crap out of any women I have ever met, :mp5:

Dobbs Town that is at least one of the many possible solutions.

Fertilizing an egg with a nucleus from a second egg is just a matter of overcoming some technical hurdles. Of course, with no Y-chromosone in the mix, the resulting embryo would always be female.
The girls produced by this technology would be no different from naturally born girls today. They would still have mixture of their parents genes, and would continue the process of mixing the gene pool that is beneficial to the species.
You can read the full article with all it's mind bending details on The Guardian.

I'm sure someone has pointed this out, but this is completely wrong. A child produced by cloning would not have a mixture of anyone's genes - but would have the exact same genetic make-up of the donor of the somatic cell. Thus, there would be *no* mixing process.

I'm sure someone has pointed this out, but this is completely wrong. A child produced by cloning would not have a mixture of anyone's genes - but would have the exact same genetic make-up of the donor of the somatic cell. Thus, there would be *no* mixing process.
Phaerime is not talking about cloning, but female-female fecundation. It's totally different, only similar in that genetic manipulation is involved.

And it has been done, but not in humans.

I dont get the first post did it prove that males started with more than 27 genes? Have they found cave man from 30,000 years ago with say 29 genes?

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.

And why didnt it mention the fact that maybe a mutation will occur that benifits males? Not all mutation is bad, some mutations are good for a species.

And besides I kick the crap out of any women I have ever met, :mp5:

What does your violent tendencies have to do with the topic?

I've heard that as their environment toxified in the 20th century, a number of species of newts and salamanders crossbred with each other, resulting in new strains of heartier amphibians more resistant to environmental poisoning. Interestingly, these newer strains reproduce asexually, parthinogenically, with no male offspring.

Who's to say it couldn't happen further up the food chain, eh?

LOL

The genome and behavior of whiptail lizards leads to the conclusion that they developed from lizards with two genders. However, all of the lizards are now female. They have a hormone cycle that goes between high levels of a testosterone-like hormone and an estrogen-like hormone. When a lizard is in a "testosterone"-high state, she will hump other lizards. When a lizard is in a "estrogen"-high state, she will allow herself to be mounted. Once she is mounted, she is stimulated to self-fertilize her eggs and lay them.

why didnt it mention the fact that maybe a mutation will occur that benifits males?

Gee I don't know Jay - because 'maybe' isn't a fact?

And besides I kick the crap out of any women I have ever met, :mp5:

Ever the terror of the ladies, eh Jay?

What does your violent tendencies have to do with the topic?


Umm being funny?
:rolleyes:

Making fun of a stupid thread, either one ummm, just as good...

The genome and behavior of whiptail lizards leads to the conclusion that they developed from lizards with two genders. However, all of the lizards are now female. They have a hormone cycle that goes between high levels of a testosterone-like hormone and an estrogen-like hormone. When a lizard is in a "testosterone"-high state, she will hump other lizards. When a lizard is in a "estrogen"-high state, she will allow herself to be mounted. Once she is mounted, she is stimulated to self-fertilize her eggs and lay them.

Interesting ... I didn't know that

And besides I kick the crap out of any women I have ever met, :mp5:

I sincerely hope you accidentally neglected to add a "could" to that claim. :rolleyes:

The genome and behavior of whiptail lizards leads to the conclusion that they developed from lizards with two genders. However, all of the lizards are now female. They have a hormone cycle that goes between high levels of a testosterone-like hormone and an estrogen-like hormone. When a lizard is in a "testosterone"-high state, she will hump other lizards. When a lizard is in a "estrogen"-high state, she will allow herself to be mounted. Once she is mounted, she is stimulated to self-fertilize her eggs and lay them.

Cool.

Umm being funny?
:rolleyes:

Making fun of a stupid thread, either one ummm, just as good...

Funny, like a clown? No, a mime. No, like a dead mime. Now that IS funny.

This thread is actually one of the more interesting ones I've seen in a week, rude uninformed outbursts excepted, of course.

Gee I don't know Jay - because 'maybe' isn't a fact?



Ever the terror of the ladies, eh Jay?


Dobbs your a idoit, that was as joke.
AND~~~
Just like 'maybe' the male's will have this problem with genes or ' maybe ' the genes have been going down hill for all these years.

I sure in 40,000 years we will all be humping each other like lizards as that other poster has stated. :rolleyes:

Umm being funny?
:rolleyes:

Making fun of a stupid thread, either one ummm, just as good...

Well Jay I would like this thread to seriously consider the possible consequences of this possible threat to human reproduction. So please
try to refrane from such tactics in the future.

I've heard that as their environment toxified in the 20th century, a number of species of newts and salamanders crossbred with each other, resulting in new strains of heartier amphibians more resistant to environmental poisoning. Interestingly, these newer strains reproduce asexually, parthinogenically, with no male offspring.

Who's to say it couldn't happen further up the food chain, eh?

LOL
Yeah (but I don’t underestimate the impact technology has had to have had on the slowing of evolution in humans due to less purely natural environmental change) a lot of the change HAS to be menial at some point in time … we are reducing stress on the body all the time but the stress on the mind just keeps going up

Phaerime is not talking about cloning, but female-female fecundation. It's totally different, only similar in that genetic manipulation is involved.

And it has been done, but not in humans.

Ah, I see - I misread it.

And it has not been done in any type of higher order animal, so the comment that it is only a few technical hurdles away was pretty silly. Even in those species in which it has been accomplished, there are much higher instances of genetic defects.

I sincerely hope you accidentally neglected to add a "could" to that claim. :rolleyes:


RIGHT! now thats funny LOL!

Dobbs your a idoit, that was as joke.
AND~~~
Just like 'maybe' the male's will have this problem with genes or ' maybe ' the genes have been going down hill for all these years.

I sure in 40,000 years we will all be humping each other like lizards as that other poster has stated. :rolleyes:

Jay, go troll somehwere else, okay? We're having a conversation here.

I dont get the first post did it prove that males started with more than 27 genes? Have they found cave man from 30,000 years ago with say 29 genes?

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.

And why didnt it mention the fact that maybe a mutation will occur that benifits males? Not all mutation is bad, some mutations are good for a species.

And besides I kick the crap out of any women I have ever met, :mp5:

Im sorry, but Ive read a lot of your posts lately, and I have to say that you are indeed one of the most intolerant people I have ever had the displeasure of meeting online. If you want to talk about beating women like some sort of a savage caveman (of which I presume you have the mentality when I read posts like this) then go join some forum where youre surrounded by more intolerant attitude. Kicking the crap out of women? Even if, as I assume it must be, a pitiful effort on your part to make an off colour joke - its not very amusing.

(Ill leave your thread alone now Phaerime, I just cant stand that garbage)

The genome and behavior of whiptail lizards leads to the conclusion that they developed from lizards with two genders. However, all of the lizards are now female. They have a hormone cycle that goes between high levels of a testosterone-like hormone and an estrogen-like hormone. When a lizard is in a "testosterone"-high state, she will hump other lizards. When a lizard is in a "estrogen"-high state, she will allow herself to be mounted. Once she is mounted, she is stimulated to self-fertilize her eggs and lay them.

*hopes to be reincarnated as a Whiptail Lizard in his next life*

Dobbs your a idoit, that was as joke.
AND~~~
Just like 'maybe' the male's will have this problem with genes or ' maybe ' the genes have been going down hill for all these years.

I sure in 40,000 years we will all be humping each other like lizards as that other poster has stated. :rolleyes:
Ohhh a JOKE

Here I was thinking it was too stupid a response to be even a low brow joke

Way to prove me wrong


:rolleyes:

Sure we need men, otherwise who would be President?
Why, the women would be president. It can't and won't always be a man.

Well Jay I would like this thread to seriously consider the possible consequences of this possible threat to human reproduction. So please
try to refrane from such tactics in the future.


This thread is nuts, some idiot reseacher is just trying to get a bonus.

1) ANY PROOF that the genes have decreased over the last 50,000 years?
2) If so, where did this proof come from? Have they duplicated the proof in a large number of cavemen?
3) As for the knuckleheads who think "positive" mutations cannto occur, ummm how did we evolve then?

Im sorry, but Ive read a lot of your posts lately, and I have to say that you are indeed one of the most intolerant people I have ever had the displeasure of meeting online. If you want to talk about beating women like some sort of a savage caveman (of which I presume you have the mentality when I read posts like this) then go join some forum where youre surrounded by more intolerant attitude. Kicking the crap out of women? Even if, as I assume it must be, a pitiful effort on your part to make an off colour joke - its not very amusing.

(Ill leave your thread alone now Phaerime, I just cant stand that garbage)

I totally agree with you LM, in fact, I will now invite Jay to refrane from such
comments in the future or leave ... his choice.

This thread is nuts, some idiot reseacher is just trying to get a bonus.

1) ANY PROOF that the genes have decreased over the last 50,000 years?
2) If so, where did this proof come from? Have they duplicated the proof in a large number of cavemen?
3) As for the knuckleheads who think "positive" mutations cannto occur, ummm how did we evolve then?

Show me your proof against the claims in the article. This is a discussion
after all, I am not trying to say that I not willing to look at evidence that
proves otherwise. I would welcome being proven wrong, because then we
wouldn't have anything to be concerned over. However if this article is correct then it would be rather stupid of us to ignore it don't you think?

well, men are good for a few things ;) ( :fluffle: )

Im sorry, but Ive read a lot of your posts lately, and I have to say that you are indeed one of the most intolerant people I have ever had the displeasure of meeting online. If you want to talk about beating women like some sort of a savage caveman (of which I presume you have the mentality when I read posts like this) then go join some forum where youre surrounded by more intolerant attitude. Kicking the crap out of women? Even if, as I assume it must be, a pitiful effort on your part to make an off colour joke - its not very amusing.

(Ill leave your thread alone now Phaerime, I just cant stand that garbage)

I've read more than enough posts from Jayastan to know that much as he claims to dish it out to all comers, in some sort of collegiate spirit of bonhomie, he is in fact, just as Lascivious Maximus posted, one of single least tolerant people I've ever crossed paths with on these forums. He'll protest, claiming it's all a joke, it's all in fun, that he's just too witty for us, that his jokes must be going over our collective heads.

Feh.

I call bullshit on that. You're just a small little man sitting in front of a keyboard, Jay. And an unfunny one, at that.

And I'd also like to apologize to Phaerime. I don't want to hijack your thread, but this guy will latch onto it and probably ruin it for everybody else, all the while chiding us for not sharing his limited sense of humour.

Sorry, Phaerime.

This thread is nuts, some idiot reseacher is just trying to get a bonus.

1) ANY PROOF that the genes have decreased over the last 50,000 years?
2) If so, where did this proof come from? Have they duplicated the proof in a large number of cavemen?
3) As for the knuckleheads who think "positive" mutations cannto occur, ummm how did we evolve then?
Yeah cause your proof is just so much more reliable

:rolleyes:

no men= no women, most mammels are balanced in sex to reproduce, so my answer would be yes we really do need men, because I or YOU wouldnt be here with out them :)

I've read more than enough posts from Jayastan to know that much as he claims to dish it out to all comers, in some sort of collegiate spirit of bonhomie, he is in fact, just as Lascivious Maximus posted, one of single least tolerant people I've ever crossed paths with on these forums. He'll protest, claiming it's all a joke, it's all in fun, that he's just too witty for us, that his jokes must be going over our collective heads.

Feh.

I call bullshit on that. You're just a small little man sitting in front of a keyboard, Jay. And an unfunny one, at that.

And I'd also like to apologize to Phaerime. I don't want to hijack your thread, but this guy will latch onto it and probably ruin it for everybody else, all the while chiding us for not sharing his limited sense of humour.

Sorry, Phaerime.

Believe me Dobbs when I say that I will not allow him to do that. If Jay doesn't want to play nice then I will ask the Mods ( who I am sure are following this thread very closely ) to explain it to him.

no men= no women, most mammels are balanced in sex to reproduce, so my answer would be yes we really do need men, because I or YOU wouldnt be here with out them :)

So True ... a truth that I would like to ensure the future of.

Sure we need men, otherwise who would be President?

At present, nine democracies or parliamentary democracies boast female Presidents or Prime Ministers: Ireland, Finland, New Zealand, The Philippines, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Latvia, and Mozambique. Moreover, Great Britain, Panama, South Korea, and many other nations have had a female leader at some point.

Do your homework, fooly. :)

For my sake, I damn well hope we need men.

I must question the validity of the source.

A search for Brian Sykes' papers doesn't pull up anything related to this issue - and I would supsect that any such findings would have been published.

At present, nine democracies or parliamentary democracies boast female Presidents or Prime Ministers: Ireland, Finland, New Zealand, The Philippines, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Latvia, and Mozambique. Moreover, Great Britain, Panama, South Korea, and many other nations have had a female leader at some point.

Do your homework, fooly. :)

Even Canada had a female PM, though most people don't count Kim Campbell as a bona fide PM - she was appointed by the departing, much-loathed Tory PM Mulroney, and all she had a chance to do was call an election, dissolve Parliament, get MASSIVELY thrashed in the ensuing polls (again, this was due to anti-Mulroney sentiment, not due to her failings), then retire from politics.

It was more of a temp job than anything. I thought it was a shame that Canada's first female PM came as an appointed position. I'd much sooner see a woman win, as leader of a federal party...

Sure we need men, otherwise who would be President? A woman. But we do need men. Women don't like admiting this WE LOVE MEN! a lot. And anyone who disputes this think of this: a world without Brad Pitt :eek: Men need women and women and need men. The sexes are very dependent. Women need men for: sanity,fun,happiness, and entertainment!

The author of this completely forgets one thing: This is evolution. Odds are, in 125,000 years we're going to be extremely changed in the first place. Look at the dinosaurs, and the incredible change in species spread across that period of time. As well... odds are, we'll be extinct (as in the human race) in that span of time. While we're innovative, we also have a volatile, self-destructive nature to ourselves. Human beings won't have to worry, because in 125 000 years, we either won't be human, or we'll be dead.
Merry Christmas!

WOW, unbelievable. I point out that the researcher did not have any proof to back up his crazy theroy and 5 or 6 peops jump out at me calling me a troll for not siding with your opinions and threatening mod action.

If you believe this plunk, your a idiot.

As a researcher making these crazy claims the burden of proof is on YOU or the researcher's backers to give proof that, these genes are going bye bye. Not I YOU.

Any idiot can google a search on evolution and see how mutations while usally negative can be positive!

And when I show while, in caveman way, how I am much much stronger than most women and could indeed kick said women's ass, I am called a troller. <<< see thats humour.

The only person I have ever had a run in with is dobbs town I believe. NEver heard of the rest of you....

The author of this completely forgets one thing: This is evolution. Odds are, in 125,000 years we're going to be extremely changed in the first place. Look at the dinosaurs, and the incredible change in species spread across that period of time. As well... odds are, we'll be extinct (as in the human race) in that span of time. While we're innovative, we also have a volatile, self-destructive nature to ourselves. Human beings won't have to worry, because in 125 000 years, we either won't be human, or we'll be dead.
Merry Christmas!

Exactly its just stupid scare mongering. heaven forbid you point this out and show how stupid the 5 or 6 peops who totally believe this crap article are...

Exactly its just stupid scare mongering. heaven forbid you point this out and show how stupid the 5 or 6 peops who totally believe this crap article are...

I'm still waiting for a scientific journal article. If I see an article in a valid, peer-reviewed journal about this, I may start worrying.

However, I have seen the way regular media twists things and, as I said, a search for Brian Sykes' papers doesn't pull up anything about this.

I'm still waiting for a scientific journal article. If I see an article in a valid, peer-reviewed journal about this, I may start worrying.

However, I have seen the way regular media twists things and, as I said, a search for Brian Sykes' papers doesn't pull up anything about this.

AS would I, the original post was just plunk....

I'm still waiting for a scientific journal article. If I see an article in a valid, peer-reviewed journal about this, I may start worrying.

However, I have seen the way regular media twists things and, as I said, a search for Brian Sykes' papers doesn't pull up anything about this.


I just went on the internet to try to find more evidence ... the following information is from the full version which names the book written by Brian Sykes' that talks about this topic & gives links to other related sites:

Okay, I apologize that I haven't read the entire thread because it is verrry long. But, I read the first few pages, hopefully that is enough to make some intelligent comments.

First of all, I should insert a disclaimer that as a lesbian, I really and truly do not understand the attraction that heterosexual women have to men. So in my mind, the only constructive use men have on the planet is reproduction. I understand that heterosexual women (and homosexual men) feel a desire for companionship from a man in some way, but I feel certain that if they were to disappear, women would carry on just fine.

I suggest to anyone interested that they read Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. It's one of the best short stories I've ever read. It's not very long and you can probably find it at your local library.

As far as reproduction, I'm certain that with enough time and funding, scientists can find a way to safely and inexpensively artificially inseminate women with eggs rather than sperm. I'm sure it would make many lesbian couples very happy and insure the safety of the human race in the future.

From a philosophical point of view, do we really need humans? We only exist to further our own existence, and the universe would probably be better off without us. Just thought I'd toss that out there...

Men, I have news for you: you are not the strongest, most capable, most intelligent creatures on earth. Most girls are capable of just as much (if not more) than most men, however our male-dominated society subliminally disables women and makes them feel the need for male companionship. You don't have to take my word for it, there's tons of books on the subject.

And lastly, to whomever made the comment about needing a real man as oppossed to a turkey baster or strapon... Here's a bit of a wake-up call for you. A woman's genitals do not work the way you think. Only the first three inches of the vaginal canal have any sensitivity at all, and the most sensitive parts are on the outside, where a penis would never even touch. What does this mean? Well, the in-and-out motion that men love so much may feel good for a woman (although it can also be painful and uncomfortable), but the best feelings are caused without any kind of phallus. For example, I can bring my girlfriend to orgasm six times in a row (and yes I have done this), WITHOUT EVEN TAKING HER PANTS OFF. Right through her jeans and underwear. So please, don't be so arrogant as to assume that women need a penis to be satisfied.

All right, I'm done.

· Adam's Curse by Bryan Sykes is published by Bantam Press at £18.99.


Special reports
Ethics of genetics
Gender issues
Medicine and health

Full text
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
The human reproductive cloning bill (pdf file)

Explained
18.01.2002: Human cloning
Stem cell research

Interactive guides
Human cloning: how it might be done
The human genome

Weblog special
Human cloning in links

Useful links
Human fertilisation and embryology authority
Chief medical officer's advisory group on human cloning
GeneWatch UK
BioIndustry Association
Current patents list (pdf)
Human genome project
EU information
Pro Life Alliance
Nuffield Bioethics

Okay, I apologize that I haven't read the entire thread because it is verrry long. But, I read the first few pages, hopefully that is enough to make some intelligent comments.

First of all, I should insert a disclaimer that as a lesbian, I really and truly do not understand the attraction that heterosexual women have to men. So in my mind, the only constructive use men have on the planet is reproduction. I understand that heterosexual women (and homosexual men) feel a desire for companionship from a man in some way, but I feel certain that if they were to disappear, women would carry on just fine.

I suggest to anyone interested that they read Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. It's one of the best short stories I've ever read. It's not very long and you can probably find it at your local library.

As far as reproduction, I'm certain that with enough time and funding, scientists can find a way to safely and inexpensively artificially inseminate women with eggs rather than sperm. I'm sure it would make many lesbian couples very happy and insure the safety of the human race in the future.

From a philosophical point of view, do we really need humans? We only exist to further our own existence, and the universe would probably be better off without us. Just thought I'd toss that out there...

Men, I have news for you: you are not the strongest, most capable, most intelligent creatures on earth. Most girls are capable of just as much (if not more) than most men, however our male-dominated society subliminally disables women and makes them feel the need for male companionship. You don't have to take my word for it, there's tons of books on the subject.

And lastly, to whomever made the comment about needing a real man as oppossed to a turkey baster or strapon... Here's a bit of a wake-up call for you. A woman's genitals do not work the way you think. Only the first three inches of the vaginal canal have any sensitivity at all, and the most sensitive parts are on the outside, where a penis would never even touch. What does this mean? Well, the in-and-out motion that men love so much may feel good for a woman (although it can also be painful and uncomfortable), but the best feelings are caused without any kind of phallus. For example, I can bring my girlfriend to orgasm six times in a row (and yes I have done this), WITHOUT EVEN TAKING HER PANTS OFF. Right through her jeans and underwear. So please, don't be so arrogant as to assume that women need a penis to be satisfied.

All right, I'm done.

I have never met a women who is as strong as me for one.

Second, how is this not trolling? GIMMIE a break...

If you believe this plunk, your a idiot.



Is that so?

Actually, that statement is entirely grammatically incorrect. It's "You're an idiot," not "your a idiot." Thank you, though, for being so kind as to evaluate my intelligence for me. Everyone needs a good reality check now and then.

On a side note, I'm seeing a lot of negative comments from men on this thread as I read more of it. Angry, aggressive negative comments, actually. They almost sound... frightened?

Not to be a jerk. There's nothing to fear, of course, since this evolutionary process would take place in a time span far, far greater than our lifetimes. Everyone calm down a bit, there's no need to panic. Let's all just relax and hold hands, shall we? Now let me get my acoustic guitar... :p

"This probably happened in the early ancestors of mammals, perhaps 100m years ago when a mutation on the ancestor of the Y-chromosome suddenly, and quite by chance, enabled it to switch on the embryonic pathway to male development. Once this happened, the chromosome was doomed. It slowly lost contact with other chromosomes, thus missing out on the interaction that normally allows the shuffling of genes and so unable to properly heal the wounds inflicted by mutations. One by one, its thousands of useful genes were lost until now only 27 remain - and they are under constant threat. "

Again, where is the proof that the genes even did infact go "poof"

This post also forgets to tell us that while 7% of men are "shooting blanks"
ALL women are totally fertile. :rolleyes: