Have human males past their biological "use-by" date?

[Michaelangelica]

Have human males past their biological "use-by" date?

 

Biologically we are probably here to protect the female; provide for her food and shelter needs and help her pass on her mitochondrial DNA.

Does She really need males any more?

She can provide for these needs herself and only a few dozen males are needed to provide sperm for babies. With a turkey baster and/or a fertility clinic she can do the rest

 

Protecting

Males seem to have got this all wrong

Since the invention of the Gattaling/Machine-Gun,high explosives and now rockets and nuclear bombs, conventional warfare seems useless and mostly un-winnable.

The world should have realised this after WW1.

 

Males continually rape women and even babies (S. Africa, Australia, most war zones)

 

Males are aggressive, take unnecessary risks and are anti-social. Jails are full mainly of males who rob, murder, bash and rape.

 

Providing

Economically males have shown they are self-aggrandising, selfish, dishonest, dissembling and devious. This has led to a collapse of the world banking system.

 

Providing Food

The food males provide is polluted with chemicals that accumulate in fatty breast tiissue and cause disease, tetrogeny and cancer. Males want to control nature, rather than working with nature

 

So would Homo sapiens, the species be better off without most human males?

[pamela]

YIKES!

 

i could counter argue with all the nasties of the female to give balance, but i would prefer to expound upon the wonder of man.

 

infant male

the bright beaming smile and twinkle in his eye as he loses his hold on suckling just to let you know how much he loves you

 

toddler male

decorating his room with an entire bottle of baby powder that makes the air so thick all you can see are his mischevious eyes

 

 

young male

making coffee in an espresso machine for a mom with the flu and not realizing that coffee does not go down the well and the lid has to be tight due to the pressure

 

teen male

endless conversations on how to talk to a girl while not realizing he is talking to one

 

adult male

establish thought patterns , personal ideologies, dreams and hopes for the now and future planning while juggling, work, school, family or girlfriend with a smile to warm even the most trying of situations

 

older male

seasoned with wisdom and knowledge, he has lived thru the storm and remains the steady calm and safe place for all those who come to sit as his knee. Beauty revealed in autumn that echos the beaming in spring

 

 

there is no expiration date on this wonderous creature:)

[sman]

YIKES!

 

i could counter argue with all the nasties of the female to give balance, but i would prefer to expound upon the wonder of man.

 

infant male

the bright beaming smile and twinkle in his eye as he loses his hold on suckling just to let you know how much he loves you

 

toddler male

decorating his room with an entire bottle of baby powder that makes the air so thick all you can see are his mischevious eyes

 

 

young male

making coffee in an espresso machine for a mom with the flu and not realizing that coffee does not go down the well and the lid has to be tight due to the pressure

 

teen male

endless conversations on how to talk to a girl while not realizing he is talking to one

 

adult male

establish thought patterns , personal ideologies, dreams and hopes for the now and future planning while juggling, work, school, family or girlfriend with a smile to warm even the most trying of situations

 

older male

seasoned with wisdom and knowledge, he has lived thru the storm and remains the steady calm and safe place for all those who come to sit as his knee. Beauty revealed in autumn that echos the beaming in spring

 

 

there is no expiration date on this wonderous creature:)

 

This whole post is an example of why the world would be a better place if women were in charge of men, instead of the other way around. History (and pre-history) has been dominated by men, and it has been bloody, childish and grim.

 

Actually, I like to put it like this: History has been dominated by violence, which happends to be a specialty of men. Finally, in our time, the trend is waneing. (Well...I like to think so.) Violence is no longer the commodity it used to be.

 

The natural talents of women, It seems to me, are much better suited for authority over men than the other way round. Women, on average, are less likely to act rashly, to interpret all conflict militarily, to employ violence to get what they want....all of these were adaptive for men in the distant past but are becoming less so.

 

So I can't just read this thread without posting by agreement with Michaelangelica, outrageous as it sounds.

[Michaelangelica]

“The difference between men and women is that, if given the choice between saving the life of an infant or catching a fly ball, a woman will automatically choose to save the infant, without even considering if there's a man on base.”

DAVE BARRY

The male "ball" gene another useless artefact left over from their hunting days.

 

Males seem more competitive. An "eye for and eye' ; a bigger bomb repays for a "little" bomb.

 

Women seem better at resolving conflict men seem better at creating conflict.

Women seem to have greater verbal skills.

Get a group of males in a room and they all start measuring their penises or equivalent (job, car, degrees IQ, # of 0+ 'scores')

 

Today, the most important Parliamentary Vote of the year on GHGs and cabon mitigation Carbon Credits Scheme in the Land of Oz and what are the politicians doing-- trying to score political "points" off each other. Stuff the planet, (literately AND figuratively?).

[enorbet2]

Greetings Gentlemen (and any ladies who subsequently post to this thread)

 

I am of an opposing opinion for the most part. That is not to say I'm promoting the ridiculous idea that more men and less women would be a good idea, just opposing the idea that women no longer need men and would be better off without us/them. I'll get to history last and take on the Science first. I am specifically referring to the observation that in virtually all higher lifeforms that evolved sexual reproduction, the egg-bearing female is most often the one who chooses the successful mate.

 

There is a revolutionary bombshell in Darwin's "Origin of Species" and especially in "Descent of Man" that was so distasteful to the sensibilities of Victorian gentlemen, the largest percentage of readership at the time, that it got buried until the 20th Century and that is the implications of Natural Selection that women choose just what kinds of men's genes get passed on to offspring. Here is an example of a feminist scientist, postdoc Griet Vandermassen writing in a publication for Ghent University for Sage Publications on the subject outlining exactly that from both a science and feminist point of view. It's not long and worth the read.

 

http://www.evoyage.com/Evolutionary Feminism/SexualSelection.htm

 

Even in societies where women were oppressed, there still existed strong and powerful women with a sense of independence who well understood how to play sexual politics. Greek, Spartan, and Roman women of higher classes had a considerable degree of autonomy as well as freedom of sexual proclivity. That such existed in some segments of Ancient Egypt implies that among civilized societies of great variety such autonomy was apparently natural. The vastly greater block of time of pre-history (and remember Cleopatra is closer to us in time than she was to the earliest Pharoahs by over one thousand years) including as much as a half million years of our near ancestors on the grasslands in small tribes where very member counted and was valued, lends credence to just how massive an effect on human history women's power of choice has made.

 

It is extremely important to note that even if women had multiple partners, by force or choice, women are actually hardwired for choice since women only have orgasms with men they like a lot and female orgasm has been found to result in the cervix dipping into the pool of semen increasing the odds that an unforced coupling with a desirable male had higher odds of resulting in pregnancy and possibly even the likelihood of survival of any offspring. (See Google or Desmond Morris's "The Human Animal" and his amazing films of this occurring.)

eg:Fertility Boosting Tactics - Why The Female Orgasm Is Your Best Friend

 

Some studies have shown that women are more likely to choose nurturing men during the "ordinary" parts of the menstrual cycle but are more disposed to physically and socially powerful men during ovulation. Since humans are one of the few mammals in constant estris, this creates a wider range of types of males whose genes survive to the next generation, improving odds for the entire species.

 

I contend that now more than ever, when mere physical prowess is not necessarily consistent with social prowess, economic power, loyalty and very likely a nurturing nature (a man willing to invest time and resources into children) and this is at least beginning to be incorporated into sexual attractiveness, we may be on the verge of a tipping point, where raw aggression is no longer sufficient, and maybe someday even, necessary. So if there was ever a time for the male side of the gene pool to be diverse, I think it is from now on.

 

As for history, have you gents ever read about such figures as Catherine the Great or Boudica? Or, have you ever heard "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"? While it may be for slightly different reasons and in lower percentages of occurrence, women are most certainly capable of extreme violence and it seems apparent that it is women's proclivities for men of violence that has at the very least added to the continuation of "the breed".

 

Don't mess too much with Nature, guys. It's doing pretty OK on it's own, now that Geek is Good.B)

[Michaelangelica]

I'm promoting the ridiculous idea that more men and less women would be a good idea,

just opposing the idea that women no longer need men and would be better off without us/them.

I'll get to history last and take on the Science first. I am specifically referring to the observation that in virtually all higher lifeforms that evolved sexual reproduction, the egg-bearing female is most often the one who chooses the successful mate.

 

There is a revolutionary bombshell in Darwin's "Origin of Species" and especially in It's not long and worth the read.

 

http://www.evoyage.com/Evolutionary Feminism/SexualSelection.htm

 

The page cannot be found

 

404 Error

Would a woman programmer say something as useless and meaningless as "404 Error"

Greek, Spartan, and Roman women of higher classes had a considerable degree of autonomy as well as freedom of sexual proclivity.

Most upper-classes did. The middle classes and Protestantism changed that.

only have orgasms with men they like a lot

ONLY? Then i should sell my shares in the Vibrator/Sex-toys Company!?

 

Some studies have shown that women are more likely to choose nurturing men during the "ordinary" parts of the menstrual cycle but are more disposed to physically and socially powerful men during ovulation.

Men also find women more attractive when they are ovulating.

So if there was ever a time for the male side of the gene pool to be diverse, I think it is from now on.

How can women trust this promise?

 

As for history, have you gents ever read about such figures as Catherine the Great or Boudica?

Some modern history:-

The World’s 10 Worst Dictators

The World's 10 Worst Dictators | Parade.com

what females match that?

or this:-

Kim Jong Il (North Korea):

$700,000 per year on cognac; 7,000 Mercedes Benz; 20,000 movies... while his country is starving

http://www.oddee.com/item_90544.aspx

 

women are most certainly capable of extreme violence and it seems apparent that it is women's proclivities for men of violence that has at the very least added to the continuation of "the breed".

In the past, perhaps, before the male "use by" date occurred about 1914-1918.

 

Is this why the Chinese kill female babies and we have an overpopulation (eventually, unsustainable) of males?

 

Don't mess too much with Nature, guys. It's doing pretty OK on it's own, now that Geek is Good.B)

You think so? the Chinese are messing, IVF is messing, GM is messing, "New" (non-star-born) chemicals (POPs) are messing, medicine & drugs are messing, world poverty is messing, war is messing. In fact we can't help ourselves "messing"

The planet is stuffed, the economy is stuffed, we still kill, sell anything for money, go to war, drive too fast, beat women, kill women, repress women (EG Many Islamic countries and other fundamentalists). interpret "holy" texts in sexist ways, pay women less, our priests are sexist paedophiles, the Pope on a world campaign of genocide, etc

 

See how you go on this quiz

I got 2 right.

Men versus Women Quiz › Science Quizzes (ABC Science)

[enorbet2]

Immediate response for 404, rest later

 

http://tinyurl.com/nkld76

[Michaelangelica]

Immediate response for 404, rest later

 

http://tinyurl.com/nkld76

Thanks, interesting, well researched article.

… the male is the more active member in the courtship of the sexes. The female, on the other hand, with the rarest exceptions, is less eager than the male…. she is coy, and may often be seen endeavouring for a long time to escape from the male…. the female, though comparatively passive, generally exerts some choice and accepts one male in preference to others…. The exertion of some choice on the part of the female seems a law almost as general as the eagerness of the male. (Darwin, 1998: 229-230)

 

Man is more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman, and has a more inventive genius. (Darwin, 1898: 576-577)

 

The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. (Darwin, 1898: 584)

Only because she wants you, and lets you, think that Mr. D !

 

In her book The Evolution of Woman: An Inquiry into the Dogma of her Inferiority to Man (1893), Gamble argued that evolution proved female superiority.

It seems to me that the female line gets to pass on her genetic package (mitocondrial DNA) virtually unchanged. This, surely, puts her in a position of biological superiority?

 

It would be nice to read the full paper.

The author does need to brush up on Epigenetics and Lamark.

[enorbet2]

ONLY? Then i should sell my shares in the Vibrator/Sex-toys Company!?

 

Sorry for being obtuse. The point is that women with multiple partners are far more likely to conceive with the male they are attracted to most.

 

<snip>

 

How can women trust this promise?

 

By having confidence in Science and the slow grind of History. The very fact that at least since civilization began on large scale, the essential path over the last century has been one of increased female freedom and power. The case can be made for the human species as a whole that the overall balance of power has shifted almost entirely to women given the most fundamental power of choosing who lives and who dies out in the future has been added to with personal and political power while males have gained no new powers to check and balance.

 

 

Some modern history:-

The World’s 10 Worst Dictators

The World's 10 Worst Dictators | Parade.com

what females match that?

or this:-

 

I already stipulated that men employ violence in greater numbers but even that is directly related to womens' choices, whether conscious or subliminal. I think the important issue is to notice that women have the capacity for extreme violence eg: bathing in blood but also have the intelligence to get men to do the dirty work. Have you ever counted up or seen statistics on the gender percentages of Hawks vs/ Doves? What I have seen is nearly equal if not leaning in favor of "hawkishness". In the US at least, female voting practices are a huge concern and not one single president since Eisenhower has actually tried much less succeeded in reducing defense spending. This cannot be supported by men alone.

<snip>

 

Is this why the Chinese kill female babies and we have an overpopulation (eventually, unsustainable) of males?

 

Obviously as China is the most population dense civilization on Earth they are attempting to keep the numbers down. Asking if this will continue to an unsustainable conclusion is far too speculative for me - too many variables such as the likelihood of famine, pestilence and war vastly reducing population numbers.

 

 

You think so? the Chinese are messing, IVF is messing, GM is messing, "New" (non-star-born) chemicals (POPs) are messing, medicine & drugs are messing, world poverty is mpessing, war is messing. In fact we can't help ourselves "messing"

The planet is stuffed, the economy is stuffed, we still kill, sell anything for money, go to war, drive too fast, beat women, kill women, repress women (EG Many Islamic countries and other fundamentalists). interpret "holy" texts in sexist ways, pay women less, our priests are sexist paedophiles, the Pope on a world campaign of genocide, etc

 

While all that is true, not only are there polar opposites in effect eg: for the first time since Deists dared to hint at a non-interfering God in the 1700's the onus of "atheism" has been diluted by becoming part of the larger "Science" group percentage-wise which is why in another thread it is noted that many fundamentalists see themselves at war with Science, not just non-believers, and non-believers are more and more unafraid to speak out, write books, from Ayn Rand to Sam Harris (and note the trend in the progression of tone and acceptance from her to him) and I will speculate here that before long, seek office. Fundamentalists IMHO are making a grave mistake (however welcomed by me) in facing off against Science in a battle they are highly unlikely to win. Despite all this, the most important point is that the above quote leading to the conclusion that women or the species need fewer men is a non sequitur.

 

See how you go on this quiz

I got 2 right.

Men versus Women Quiz › Science Quizzes (ABC Science)

 

FWIW I got 5 out of 10. I missed only 1,2,3,5 and 6.

 

As this thread contains considerable parallels with the "bullying" thread, I think we can also gain from those posts that show the number of people and institutions working to reduce bullying by exposing it for the fraud it generally is. I may be an optimist and a dreamer, but as in John Lennon's "Imagine" 'I'm not the only one' and that such a song was and is a Classic Hit which would have been impossible in almost any other time in history, even if the short term conclusion is another setback and the grind upward is slower than we dared fear, the direction is still a good one, or are you more pessimistic more often than I?

[McBrayer]

Nice replys........

[GAHD]

My personal experiences tell me;

 

Women are more prone to violence; in a bar women fight more than men, or try to get men to fight for their amusement.

 

Women hold extreme views more often then men; a woman is more likely to shoot to kill than shoot to injure.

 

Women argue more than men, and will go out of their way to destroy the life of another simply because "I don't like them".

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying women deserve to be chained up in the kitchen, but in no way shape or form should there be another Mary Antoinette. Humanity can only move forward when neither sex is in dominance, when no one individual holds sway over masses.

[freeztar]

My personal experiences tell me;

 

Women are more prone to violence; in a bar women fight more than men, or try to get men to fight for their amusement.

 

Women hold extreme views more often then men; a woman is more likely to shoot to kill than shoot to injure.

 

Women argue more than men, and will go out of their way to destroy the life of another simply because "I don't like them".

 

Ok, now I don't feel so bad living south of the border. :P

 

In my experiences, women have *never* been more prone to violence.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying women deserve to be chained up in the kitchen, but in no way shape or form should there be another Mary Antoinette. Humanity can only move forward when neither sex is in dominance, when no one individual holds sway over masses.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence.

[HydrogenBond]

Males are visual animals and females are more verbal (on the average). The difference this creates is in terms of reality perception, is the male visual allows for better cause and effect perception and extrapolation in physical reality. The reason this is so, is because verbal images can be manipulated easier/faster than the visuals within physical reality. It will take time to set up a magic trick to manipulate visual reality. But one can lie in the blink of an eye. The male has more time for confirming reality.

 

With words, I can say, I am going to build a bridge made of spaghetti. This can not be done in physical reality, because common sense visual extrapolation will not allow this to materialize visually. But the verbal image of a spaghetti bridge, with the proper sales pitch, especially if it creates confidence and positive emotion, may make it seem possible, to anyone who has limited physical visualization for extrapolation.

 

This difference is why so many guys are able to lie to women, in the short term. The guy can see his visual limitations within reality. They can also create verbal illusions, out of touch with this reality, banking on the lower visual reality skills of females, knowing that not all female will be as able to extrapolate into physical or visual reality.

 

Education, in all forms, creates the verbal link to fill in the visual limitations of the female. She can learn to extrapolate via procedure to get the same final effect. Male common sense and his visual nature, allows him to fill this in with less education. This allows men to pioneer new areas where the verbal is not yet in place.

 

For example, the male driver will often try to find the way to an unknown location without stopping to ask, because he is trying to use his visual skills, which often have atrophied. The female will prefer to depend on verbal advice to oriented her. If the advice is good this may be the faster way. But if it is bad advice, the visual path is less effected.

 

Mothers have a strong influence on their sons. If the mother allows the son to be spoiled and manipulative, she is molding her son to do that to other women, so other women can blame the male. Since this relationship is reality cause and effect , she it may not be able to see it, but will do this based on something she verbally learned in the latest book, without visual conformation.

 

The strong father will discipline the spoiled son, because he can visually extrapolate behavior, potentially helping the future women. But other male illusionists, catering to the verbal needs of females, have neutralized the father. With the loss of the strong father figure, sons are being conditioned to depend more on verbal, like the females, creating he-she. This is the male, that some women don't see much use for. Other females defend males, but of the other type; reliable vision.

[Michaelangelica]

Nice replys........

Yes too good I'd say.

I will try the debaters trick of changing ground.

 

In Australia, 1 in 4 women are sexually attacked; 1 in 3 suffers from male aggression. In some aboriginal communities this figure is much higher and includes a lot of incest, even with babies.

Now, if this is happening it seems to me that something is wrong with the male biology. Have they been poisoned by the 20th Century chemicals and pesticides? What has happened to their protective and paternal instincts? it has all gone awry.

[enorbet2]

I think it is a mistake to characterize the cycle of abuse as being one confined to or simply growing ever greater (awry) in the 20th Century onward and solely in males. I think it is safe to say that such aberrant behaviour has been common throughout history, with many factors - culture, population density, poverty, drugs (including and maybe even especially alcohol) and apparently in some civilizations, technology and it's pollutants, such as lead pipes and lead drinking vessels for water and wine in ancient Rome - acting as contributing causes.

 

I am reminded that this "cancer" is also often self-replicating in that the abused often become abusers, so one drunken, screwed up mother or father can in turn screw up several children who can then begin a logarithmic progression when they have children. How a society deals with such issues effects all including public knowledge they even exist. Also, as in the so-called Satanic Cult issues, which seem entirely a fabrication, the waters get muddied and diverted from the real causes which is counter-productive.

 

Hopefully a visit to the museum and viewing inventions of Medieval times for inhumanity to Man may be a positive reality check that we, and especially considering such a huge increase in population, are actually slowly progressing away from such barbarism.

[Boerseun]

I wouldn't say that there is a big difference between the best and the worst that either males or females have to offer.

 

For every Hitler, you have a right ***** like Marie Antoinette. Fewer of the female tyrants came to the fore in days gone by, because men were bigger and stronger and hogged high office for themselves. This, however, is not to say they weren't there, of course. You'll read about Genghis Kahn in the history books, but you won't even find a footnote referring Daisy Kahn, his wife, whom he lived in total fear of. She was made of Pure Evil, and had Genghis run around the Steppes bringing her the heads of those people who looked only slightly dodgy to her.

 

The biggest problem today is, indeed, women's rights. Okay, before the stoning begin, lemme tell you why:

 

Females now have the same social rights and privileges men have, in the West, at least. But the problem does not lie there - it's all Great and Grand and stuff. The problem lies in the fact that the women now compete on a fair footing with men, without considering what the situation is like at home anymore. OMG - What a chauvinist! Nope. Families are falling apart and kids are growing into complete a-social shits because seeing as mommy can compete with men, she's off working. And daddy isn't reciprocating by quitting his job.

 

My point is that I don't give a rip who's the working partner, mommy or daddy. But one of them should make a bit of a sacrifice and stay at home, until the kids are in high school, at least. Then we should see a big return to good values and mutual respect. Today's kids are lost, and grow up to be bastards if males and bitches if female. In a big way thanks to women's rights, ironically.

 

Right. Let the stoning begin.

[pamela]

don't worry, i am not one to throw stones, a brick maybe;)

When my boys were younger, i had the opportunity to be a stay at home mom. Due to extenuating circumstances, i was forced to go back to the workplace.It was difficult, trying to be supermom, i will admit, but i did not have a choice.With the dissolution of my marriage, the struggle was increased.It is important to take time and listen to your children, whatever the circumstance that you find yourself in. My oldest, now 18 and recently graduated, displays the charcteristics of a gentleman. He is kind, empathetic and sympathetic and intelligent. I could not possibly be prouder. My youngest, although in hormonal craze, still exhibits these qualities. I feel certain, he too, will follow the same path as his brother.

Unfortunately, Boerseun, in today's economy, it often takes 2 incomes just to make ends meet. The absence of parental influence, will indeed have an effect on the children.It is crucial for the parents to make quality time with them and be there for them emotionally. Responsibility and all that entails, should fall on both the mother and father, in order to provide the best emotional well being for their child