Saturday, August 25, 2007

More Pipe Dreams of Men and their Enablers

Are Women Necessary?
Published: November 11, 2003

Abundant evidence suggests that females are the first sex, the ancestral sex, the sex from which males are derived.

Boys owe their lives to their mothers in more ways than one. Yet recent experiments with stem cells hint that women, not men, may eventually prove obsolete.

Granted, a post-feminine future sounds far-fetched. In many species, including our own, the fundamental body plan is female, with maleness being a bit of window-dressing tacked on at the last minute.

Some groups of insects, fish and lizards consist entirely of females, which give birth only to daughters. By contrast, no self-sustaining, boys-only population has ever arisen in nature, the efforts of certain Southern golf tournaments notwithstanding.

Indeed, males are famous for their cheap, abbreviated gametes, and their poignant need for the warmth and wealth of the comparatively massive female sex cell to realize their dreams of immortality. You'd think they would be humble, grateful, even obsequious. But it seems that somewhere along the way those slippery flagella figured out a possible pathway to go it alone.

Here are the unnerving results that threaten the matriarchy: last spring, after years of effort, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and elsewhere announced that they could grow working egg cells in the laboratory if they started with embryo tissue taken from either a female or a male mouse.

These hothouse eggs and their accompanying follicular matrix were so persuasive they even secreted and responded to estrogen, the archetypically ''female'' hormone.

In September, Japanese researchers said they could create robust little sperm cells in the lab, too -- but only if they began with the embryonic stem cells of a male animal. It turns out that the program for making eggs is stored on the chromosomes that males and females share. To manufacture sperm, however, you need that truncated, genetically penurious Y chromosome that only a male can claim.

In theory, then, male starter cells could be used to make eggs and sperm, and those eggs and sperm could be mixed together to yield a new generation. This would not be parthenogenesis as seen in whiptail lizards or Nature's other little sororities, with the parent capable only of spawning more of its own sex and hence being limited in its power to genomically outfox parasites.

This would be like old-fashioned, shake-'em-up, male-female sexual reproduction, a meeting of eggs and sperm. You could mix and match your fabricated eggs and sperm to generate boys and girls alike.

Except why bother with girls, if you don't need mothers to lay those little egg cells in the first place? You could have robust diversity in the human gene pool without the need for pesky separate restrooms.
True, women at the moment remain useful for their possession of another baby-friendly device, the uterus. But how long will this anatomical detail be an impediment to complete female obsolescence?

Already, researchers can keep baby goats alive in an artificial uterus, a big fishbowl of bubbling fluid, for weeks at a stretch. A full-term, full-service exoamniotic cocoon cannot be far behind.

Given such recent and imminent developments, Rebecca West, journalist, novelist and companion of H. G. ''Doomsday'' Wells, was eerily prescient in her observation that motherhood is ''like being one's own Trojan horse.''

Yet as women contemplate their pending irrelevance, they can take heart in a more immediate lesson to be gleaned from the latest experimental results. If inside every man's genome is a little mother yearning to be free, well, then, no more excuses when it's time to change the diapers.

The sad part about this article is that it was researched by a woman, written by a woman and I’m sure that same woman truly believed what she wrote, as will most of the other women who ever get to read it.

However anyone with even a elementary knowledge of humanity’s historic record would see the fatal flaw in this scenario and understand why it would be the end of humanity should it ever come to pass. As the very group the article claims might successfully inhabit the earth alone is the same group that has been ruling the planet since we first crawled out of the primal mist. It’s the larger, stronger and more aggressive half of humanity that dominates every species including our own. If you wish to be completely honest about it, they are the same ones who are currently driving our planet into ruin, killing off most of their animal brothers and sisters in between steady bouts of killing off their human ones in these endless wars over nothing that they continue to engage in. Not to mention the wars over resources that continuously spring up amongst them.

Common sense would show that if one sex was to be chosen to ensure maximum survival benefit for any species it should be female. But unfortunately, common sense appears to not be very common these days.

Any unbiased reading of statistics demonstrates that from Brooklyn to Baghdad men steadily engage in violent and anti-social behavior against humanity at a far higher rate then women do. This doesn’t even count the endless so-called legitimate wars they constantly declare against one another. I’m just talking about the soccer riots, the drunken fights they engage in, violent robberies, rapes, murders, etc., Not to mention the ordinary run of the mill stoning of woman for minor transgressions and serial killing of women in bizarre sex crimes. Reading through some of Steven E. Rhoads, book “Taking Sex Differences Seriously” you can see certain statistics hold up worldwide, btw. So we’re not just talking about behaviors specific just to western civilization here or any cultural differences that would explain male aggression for men residing in either Brooklyn or Baghdad. He’s the same essential being standing on a street corner in Brooklyn or sitting in a tent off a sand dune somewhere, same being.

Actually the incredible thing to my mind is that historically women have managed to not just survive; but also to raise so many of our young to maturity in the hostile climate that man collectively has created for us. When you read a history book or take a look at a newsfeed from another country and see what life was and still is like today for so many women, you have to just be amazed at the ingenuity, bravery and sheer tenacity that woman have displayed over the ages just to get any of us alive here today.

So you’re an awful idiot if you believe that either God or nature would chose the male of our species as the optimum choice to continue humanity’s role on this planet. That’s a choice you make when you’re fed up with a species and trying to put an end to it.


Elusive Wapiti said...

Hi NYMOM. Been a while since I've visited.

"Common sense would show that if one sex was to be chosen to ensure maximum survival benefit for any species it should be female."

Why would this be common sense? All it shows is that science has basically shown that sexual reproduction for homo sapiens to be technologically unnecessary, as there have already been articles crowing about how men were unnecessary for the propagation of the species. And if sexual reproduction is not necessary, then my Common Sense says that the sex that is bigger, stronger, has more stamina, is marginally more intelligent and has a much wider distribution of intelligence scores, and is much less likely to be injured during demanding physical activity should be the one required to sustain the species.

"[men] steadily engage in violent and anti-social behavior against humanity at a far higher rate then women do"

Without a doubt. However, I think women would be wrong to wash their hands of partial responsibility for this. After all, it is women who do the raisin' of boys without fathers around; those boys grow up to be disproportionately violent men.

"...but also to raise so many of our young to maturity in the hostile climate that man collectively has created for us"

Perhaps you think that if women ruled the world it would be effectively different. I don't share your optimism, given what I've seen thus far.

"That’s a choice you make when you’re fed up with a species and trying to put an end to it."

Actually, if you were God, then that would be the very choice you would make when you're trying to ensure a species' survival. If feminism's record as a totalitarian movement is any indicator, putting women in complete charge would be the quickest road to hell known to well, man and woman.

NYMOM said...

"Why would this be common sense"

Because woman is the least likely of the two of us to commit violent or anti-social acts. Also history has shown that even in the most hostile climate, woman will chose to have children and somehow successfully raise them to maturity...Men's commitment to children is not as powerful obviously, as you have no physical link.

That's probably why men can be so hostile to women on such a massive scale. But as women bear both male and female children, her bond is with both.

Also women raising boys alone is not the only predictor of violence since men are more anti-social and violent then women throughout every society and men participate in raising them in other places. Are men less violent in Islam, for instance? I think not.

Clearly expecting the more anti-social half of us with the least investment in our young to carry on alone would not be a wise choice for either God or evolution...we could get along w/o technology and wars. We cannot get along w/o a maternal commitment to even want any kids...

Elusive Wapiti said...

"Because woman is the least likely of the two of us to commit violent or anti-social acts"

There are a lot of factors that contribute to a greater relative propensity toward violent behavior. Yes, men have a greater likelihood for violent / criminal behavior. When raised in environments without a father, they are markedly more likely to engage in this behavior as well. This is true whether they were raised in the states or in Iran or China. In fact, there is a very strong correlation between fatherlessness and terrorism. But this is beside the point, since, if there were to be a single-sex world, you have expressed a preference for the female half of the species.

So, let's consider for a moment what the scene would look like without the male sex around. The first and foremost element that comes to my mind is that now, women would be responsible for all of the resource allocation and dispute resolution in a society. Let that sink in for a minute...women would be responsible for ensuring that the trains run on time, for mining the coal that runs the power plants, for constructing the buildings, for growing and harvesting the crops, for police and fire protection, and for defending their territory and resources from other competing groups. On top of all this, women would have to bear children and raise them along the way. No longer would women be able to take being covered by men for granted. Women would have to start thinking beyond themselves and their children and their immediate social group. Men look after the good of the entire tribe; when was the last time you saw a woman risk her life for someone that wasn't related to her, even her husband?

Second, let's talk about women's behavior in the wake of this male vacuum. I posit that, without men around, the violent and anti-social behavior of women would skyrocket as women emerged to fill the power void left behind by the absence of men. We've already seen this mechanism in action with the "jockification" of female behavior. Also, anyone who has seen girls / women fight know that it is a completely different beast than when men go at it. Same goes for male victims of DV, who have witnessed female cruelty first-hand. Think war with male combatants is savage? War with women would be worse.

Third, let's talk about systems of government. It's undeniably true that personal liberty has been a primary casualty of feminism, as women readily trade liberty for security. Hitler's promises made to the women's groups in Germany in the early 30s were directly responsible for his electoral victory in '33. Similarly, the ascendancy of women in our culture has also resulted in the growth in the size and scope of government. A world run completely by women would not be a fun one to live in.

"...history has shown that even in the most hostile climate, woman will chose to have children and somehow successfully raise them to maturity"

Recent history has shown the opposite. The most male-like women, the feminists, are the ones who are choosing not choosing to procreate. It is the more fecund right wing-nuts and immigrants from the more patriarchal societies who are having children at or above replacement rate fertility.

"Men's commitment to children is not as powerful obviously, as you have no physical link."

I may not have squeezed out my 3 children, but it would be a mistake to claim that I have a weaker link to them than my wife. (It is marriage that creates and supports that link, but that is a post for another day.) And for men who don't have strong ties to their kids, think about why that is, and think about women's--especially feminists--role in attacking that link.

"That's probably why men can be so hostile to women on such a massive scale"

If hostility is so wrong, then why do you bear so much malice toward men?

"Clearly expecting the more anti-social half of us with the least investment in our young to carry on alone would not be a wise choice"

Expecting the half of the species that is the least able to care for itself in a survival situation is a patently silly thing to do.

"for either God or evolution"

God created humanity both male and female in his image. There was a reason for that, as a single-sex society of either sex would be lesser than one with both. And the notion of evolution choosing anything is preposterous. After all, if evolution were true, we'd just be results of countless random pairings of atoms and molecules and protiens, wouldn't we?

NYMOM said...

"When raised in environments without a father..."

This is not true. It's another excuse for you to blame women for the bad behavior of men. Whether raised with or without a father, men have always been more violent then women. It makes no difference. Actually many terrorists were raised with fathers as women have little power in Islamic societies, so it's not true what you say that it makes a great difference. It does not.

It could be true what you say that a world system run by women would not have access to so much technology and would have less personal liberty but I think many women would find this an acceptable tradeoff and the environment certainly would...less waste to dispose of, less pollution and smaller human population.

Of course to get to that point would take a lot of suffering.

But you can't blame women for this as we'd have to undo the years of misuse of the planet's resources as well as the year of psychology abuse of women that men have enabled to take place. It might wind up being impossible to undo the damage to either our planet or womens' psyche...who knows.

NYMOM said...

Even your comment 'squeezed out my 3 children' is an example of the sort of emotional abuse that women have to put up with everytime we attempt to exercise our legitimate rights to our own children...

We are immediately silenced by comments like this from men and sadly, from other women as well, who have been brainwashed into the same sort of thinking...

Elusive Wapiti said...

Contrary to your assertion, it is quite true that boys raised in environments that lack a resident father are significantly more prone to a whole host of ills. There is a whole chunk of research
out there that has crunched the social science data and has come to this conclusion. If you haven't read it, I encourage you to look it up and judge for yourself.

Speaking of data, I realize that feminist activists, in their 'men bad', 'women good' cheerleading, have a vested interest in trying to distract attention from the well-documented association between father absence and deviant behavior. But the simple fact is that denying the reality of the negative effects of fatherlessness doesn't make this mechanism any less real.

As for not "mak[ing] a great difference", an examination of the data indicates otherwise.

Getting back to the point of this thread, I think that you are dreaming if you think that a world run and populated completely by women would be some sort of feminist utopia that is better than the one we live in right now. In fact, I contend that in many ways it would be worse off. To say nothing of the reduced odds for the long-term survival of a deliberately unisex, asexually reproducing species.

"I think many women would find this an acceptable tradeoff "

I think Uncle Ben may have something to say about the wisdom of this.

I don't know how much life is left in this thread, so I'll take the opportunity now to say thanks for the discussion. I was pleased to see that my contrarian comments were not moderated into oblivion. Thanks again.

NYMOM said...

Elusive: You appear to be very fixated on taking the unusual situation of some of our poorest groups in the west and making universal pronouncements about all people from them.

Historically, it's not true what you say about men being raised w/o fathers being more prone to violence. History has shown us that men raised with fathers or without makes NO DIFFERENCE...

Were the armies of men that fought every war we've ever had made up of fatherless boys? No.

Were their leaders or the political figures who started these wars fatherless? No...

This is simply another excuse men have come up with to blame women for their own shortcomings. You want to blame someone for the violence of men, take a good hard look in the mirror at yourselves.

AND as you well know I've never stopped people who disagree with me from posting. It's your own mens' sites that do that.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"Historically, it's not true what you say about men being raised w/o fathers being more prone to violence. History has shown us that men raised with fathers or without makes NO DIFFERENCE..."

I don't know how you could say anything about "historically", since the data about fatherlessness simply did not exist much beyond a generation or two ago. Also, widespread divorce and single parenthood is a relative novelty in Western society. So making any references to so-called historical trends is a mistake, since the conditions that we are talking about have only occurred recently.

From your responses, it appears that I am lacking clarity in what I'm saying. I'm unsure of how I can be any more clear, but I'll try once more:

First, the data shows that men tend toward comparatively more toward violent behavior than women. Exactly why is open to debate.

Second, the data shows that men raised in fatherless homes are more violent that those from intact families. This trend is largely independent of income and race. Note that I am not saying that this is the only predictor, just one that has a large effect size. Your contention that fatherlessness has no effect is false, and repeatedly asserting otherwise does not magically make it true.

Third, based on the behavior of women as they assume less and less "traditionally female" gender roles, I contend that a world populated solely by women would be just as violent.

Fourth, I posit that if you want a species to survive, picking the sex that has less strength, less endurance, is marginally less intelligent, and has a narrower distribution in intelligence scores (thus less idiots AND less geniuses) is a patently stupid thing to do if survival is your objective. Unless you are trying to make the species extinct, that is.

"You want to blame someone for the violence of men"

The first step in fixing a problem is recognizing that there is one in the first place. People who think as you do place all the blame for crime on the criminals themselves, and ignore other factors and influences that unnecessarily increase the propensity toward violent behavior. An example of such a factor is the White Feather campaign in England. People who think as you put all the criminals in jail and then wonder why the crime rate remains so high.

It is clear to me that you want to place blame for all violence on men. In doing so, I contend that you are ignoring or minimizing the significant influences that women have. After all, as you've pointed out, women bear the boys that grow up later into adults. Therefore, there is a relationship between those women and the behavior of the boys they raise.

In addition, by focusing only on male violence, you are ignoring the growing proportion of women who themselves engage in violent behavior. What do you have to say about that?

"I've never stopped people who disagree with me from posting"

Do you not recall banning both myself and Polish Knight in the past?

Thus I've been pleasantly surprised thus far about the duration of this debate, and I hope that it continues.

NYMOM said...

It's not true what you say about violence being independent of race in the west. Actually most of the statistics used by people to show this are the statistics of African-American men...clearly a distortion of reality to try to blame the problems of black men on women...

Black men are impacted by a history of racism in this country, their problems are not the fault of their mothers.

Regarding the best group to survive: it would be the group most likely to reside in the middle of the ordinary bell-shaped curve, where the vast majority of people reside. We don't need any more 'genuises' like Hitler, Caesar, Stalin, Mao and the like...even an Einstein, what did he do but contribute the nuclear bomb to the arsenal of men. One more weapon for you to kill each other with.

Many of the technological breakthroughs of men have only been short term benefits anyway. Over the long term, they are destroying the earth. Like large cities: great in the beginning, but now nothing but a vast strain on the environment.

The same thing with factory farming/agriculture on such a huge scale.

So probably woman wouldn't have achieved these things, but so what? Our populations would be smaller, not as technologically advanced but we wouldn't have had the means to kill each other on such a grand scale...and that's not such a bad thing either.

I banned you and Polish Knight because you both began generating into smart asses with a dozen comments a day such as 'squeezed out my kids' and frankly I just got tired of it.

LorMar said...

hmmm, this is truly an interesting conversation. First I would like to say that I would never want to live in a society without men. I am currently single and pregnant by choice but recognize that I could not become a mother without the help of a man; and would not want it any other way. But, I would have to say that Elusive really has a tough case to prove. The fact is, men in the islamic world tend to have a strong paternal influence (including those who become terrorist). To claim a link between fatherlessness and terrorism is unrealistic as it is the fathers who generally teach the children in those countries. Also, the stats on fatherlessness in the United States are not based on mothers who make an informed decision to parent alone. Most of it is about women who are either divorced, or from lower economic classes. Let's face it, women have a bond with their children that is way beyond what men have. This isn't because women are better parents, IMO. But it is because men generally do not create the same bonds between themselves and their children. Lastly, I firmly believe that men and women need each other in order to survive. A human society without one sex simply would not last.

NYMOM said...

Sorry I've been away so long and haven't been responding to comments...

Anyway, yes, I agree with pretty much everything you say Lormar.

The problem is with this whole gender neutral interpretation of motherhood today we appear to have just handed more power and control over to the half of humanity that historically has had the greatest amount of power and control of everything already...

There is virtually no recognition of the special and unique bond between mother and child. Nor of the greater risk women assume or the larger physical or emotional investment women make when actually bringing children into the world.

That's my basic problem with the whole thing and until that changes I make no concessions to anyone but women as being significant in their role as mothers.