babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Men doomed, feminists rejoice!

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Men doomed, feminists rejoice!
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 15 September 2002 07:58 AM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I found this article extremely interesting, and couldn't help thinking a few here might find it informative and amusing:

End of Sperm Report

Geneticist Steve Jones says science is now telling us what feminists knew all along - the future is female. The male of the species is doomed as the Y chromosome withers away

As if the basic argument was not gonna enrage people enough, I particularly loved this comment:

quote:
'There are over 500 courses on men's studies in American universities. I mean, what the hell are they on about? This idea that if you understand how men work, emotionally or even biologically, the problems affecting men will simply go away. It's nonsense. Poverty or illiteracy is not just going to go away if men look deep within and find their warrior selves. These people are positing biological solutions to problems that are overwhelmingly social or political. The whole notion of men's studies falls on that argument to a considerable extent.'

Hear hear!


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Spring Hope
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 417

posted 15 September 2002 08:10 PM      Profile for Spring Hope     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Poverty or illiteracy is not just going to go away if men look deep within and find their warrior selves."

As if that is the only thing men's studies are about! Another method of demeaning a group whom you deem to be adversarial rather than looking closer and telling the truth.


From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 16 September 2002 07:42 AM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, but there is a reality check in his statement that:

quote:
These people are positing biological solutions to problems that are overwhelmingly social or political.

Mens studies is not just about finding the warrior self but there has been an overconcentration on that (and related) aspects to the detriment of real research into exactly what problems the male of the species does have (for which, read the whole article).


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 September 2002 11:01 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You will have to forgive me if I have little respect for pop science from fellows who want to sell books.

It is an established fact that male sperm counts, over the past few decades, as been in steady decline while, at the same time, rates of testicular cancer has incresed.

Serious have linked these trends to environmental factors, in particular, toxins and hormones in the work place as well as in the larger environment.

Mother nature does not have it in for maculinity. Men are doing themselves in with their own toxic concotions.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 16 September 2002 12:17 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe the definitive statement in this regard is to be found in Michael Moore's Stupid White Men ...and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!, chapter 7, The End of Men. Destroy all stepladders and jar-opening aids fellas, or we're done for !!!!!!!
From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 16 September 2002 01:12 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Did you read the whole article Wingnut?
From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 September 2002 02:27 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes. Perhaps I read it too quickly or without due care but I was left with a general impression that two scientists are arguing essentially the same: the Y chromosone is but an evolutionary blip in time. Fair enough. But overall I was left feeling the intention is to generate contoversey and sell books.
"Men becoming extinct" as a headline will sell more copies of a book then "Pollution results in lower sperm counts."

But the arguments put forward, if I did catch the gist of them, do a disservice to both men and women. The same environmental factors that contribute to declining sperm counts and incidence of testicular cancer also contibute to higher amounts of breast and cervical cancers in women. As well as, respiratory ailments in children.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 16 September 2002 02:45 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think you may well have read without due care and attention:

Who are the two scientists?

quote:
'Perhaps... science will cause nature to return to its original and feminine state and men themselves to fade from view.' He is speaking here, as scientists tend to when making predictions, of the bigger picture, of a time maybe five million years hence.

Does that sound like he is saying "men becoming extinct"?

Environmental factors:

quote:
Men's cavalier attitude to their own health ....food packaging, oestrogen in the water supply and feminising hormones in milk are all possible causes of the alarming decline in sperm counts across Europe.

I am not sure that you have read it closely enough:

quote:
the Y chromosone is but an evolutionary blip in time.

In what way is that not worthy of discussion, even discussion generated from controversy?


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 16 September 2002 03:10 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The whole planet is de-diversifying - much more rapidly since we humans gained dominance. But clearly the article isn't meant to say that men are doomed. One line, almost thrown away, states that with the disintigration of the Y chromosome, another sex signifier will dominate. That is what I found most interesting (and had to wade through all that other nonsense to get to it). So that implies that we will still have more than one biological sex even if Y dies. Okay, so what candidates are in the wings, waiting to take over for the beleaguered Y chromosome?

It really annoys me when journalists gloss over pertinent details in order to give extra time to the crap that sells more papers.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 16 September 2002 03:23 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe if you had read all the crap you would have noticed this crap:

quote:
'Perhaps... science will cause nature to return to its original and feminine state and men themselves to fade from view.' ...... Put simply, men are in terminal trouble, and that trouble is linked to the Y chromosome that defines them. 'The chromosome unique to men is a microscopic metaphor for those who bear it,' Jones concludes. 'For it is the most decayed, redundant and parasitic of the lot... From sperm count to social status, and from fertilisation to death, as civilisation advances those who bear Y chromosomes are in relative decline.'.........'Basically,' he says, taking a deep breath, 'the Y chromosome is a male signifier. It evolves quite rapidly, but downhill. We now have the human DNA sequence and the surprise is to find that most of it is not functional. It's either decayed, or it's simply redundant. That's true for the entire human chromosome sequence. If you look at the Y, though, that truth is multiplied maybe 30 times. It's only got 20 genes on it, most of which are employed keeping the cell it's in alive.' ......... Again and again, you can see evolutionary lineages that have gone all-female. Now, it has to be said that they often fail, but you never see evolutionary images that go all-male.'

Gosh, all that crap!


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 September 2002 03:30 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We now have the human DNA sequence and the surprise is to find that most of it is not functional. It's either decayed, or it's simply redundant.

This is crap. Or, at least, he doesn't know enough to say that it's not crap. No-one does. The results of Human Genome Project knocked most of the central dogma of genetics into a cocked hat. The claim above is just a bluff.

This thread, too, is crap.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 16 September 2002 03:33 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well what is a crap person like you doing spouting crap in a crap thread, then?

quote:
This is crap. Or, at least, he doesn't know enough to say that it's not crap. No-one does.

Doesn't know enough to say it is not crap - is that a double negative that means he knows enough to say it is crap? Explain.


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 September 2002 03:34 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Who are the two scientists?

No one said there would be a quiz and more than that, who cares?
quote:

quote: 'Perhaps... science will cause nature to return to its original and feminine state and men themselves to fade from view.' He is speaking here, as scientists tend to when making predictions, of the bigger picture, of a time maybe five million years hence.

Does that sound like he is saying "men becoming extinct"?



What does "men ... to fade from view" say to you?
quote:

Environmental factors:

quote: Men's cavalier attitude to their own health ....food packaging, oestrogen in the water supply and feminising hormones in milk are all possible causes of the alarming decline in sperm counts across Europe.

I am not sure that you have read it closely enough:



Yes a minor acknowledgement with a shot at all men ignoring more recent trends of men not only becoming more aware of their health but actively taking interest in preserving it. Mens and their health, today, represents a sea change in attitude from previous generations. But this does not change the environmental factors most of which men have no control over whether it is pharmaceuticals in the water supply or hormones in milk.

quote:

quote: the Y chromosone is but an evolutionary blip in time.

In what way is that not worthy of discussion, even discussion generated from controversy?



In and of itself, it is likely worthwhile to discuss and that is not my objection. My objection is tying it to trends too recent and sudden to be construed as "natural" and when linked to other major health concerns such as cancer.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 16 September 2002 03:35 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps there should be a "Babble Crap" area for bad forums. I vote for the one about the three Arabic students in Florida that me and Slick Willy turned into an utter sham.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 16 September 2002 04:13 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Maybe if you had read all the crap you would have noticed this crap
I had to laugh when I read that. You keep insisting to anyone who doesn't agree with you that they haven't read the article all the way through. I read it all the way through. I even did so without my lips moving or my finger following the lines of text on my monitor.

It's still crap. And yeah, this thread sucks.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 16 September 2002 04:22 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
No one said there would be a quiz and more than that, who cares?

LMFAO. You claim you may have given it a cursory read so might have missed something then you mention 2 scientists, which kinda proves you didn't read it at all. There isn't a quiz for people who have read the actual article, just for those who pretend they have so they can say something controversial about it!!! Talk about hypocrisy!!

quote:
What does "men ... to fade from view" say to you?

In 5 million years! LOL, at the very best that would be "men to become extinct!" not becoming!!

On reading the rest of what you wrote, is it your impression that he is saying men are their own problem, because that is not what the article said to me, nor why I posted it (he does mention their cavalier attitude to health (which may have changed but not that much!) but not, as I read it, in a derogatory way to men, but just as a comment). If you think he is blaming men for their own decay etc., then I think you definitely need to read the article more carefully. It seemed an interesting article because it posits a future without men, that men will eventually become extinct. The reason for this is:

quote:
that which defines masculinity is also killing men.

But that is not blaming men, but looking at the biology/genetics of it.

His comments about "mens studies" are not a slight at all men, but rather at academics (male or female) that run courses for finding the 'inner warrior', and on that I agree with him.


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 September 2002 04:54 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe the article mentions a couple of writers in particular a Hawkins, I think. But that is still besides the point. More to the point is the statement that men will disappear in 5 million years. My argument is that the book is intended to be sensationalist and controversial just for the sake of selling books. I remember some time ago the front pages of newspapers and the top story on broadcasts was that the sun would supernova -- in a few million years. Hype is hype and this book is obviously intended to be hyped.

quote:
because it posits a future without men, that men will eventually become extinct.

Isn't that what I said that you found so humorous?
First you imply my interpretation is incorrect and then you repeat it as is? Never mind the book. Why should I take you seriously?

I have noticed apeman that the quality of your debate has declined dreadfully in several threads. You have exchanged reason for silly insults and poorly executed sarcasm.

This is a little disappointing. Personally, I hold the little emoticons responsible. They make it only too easy to substitute them for a cleverly worded rejoinder and you seem to have taken to them, recently, in a big way.

I mean, right now, I am feeling a little lazy to bother thinking up a decent conclusion to this post. So:


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 16 September 2002 07:15 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I suppose a more prosaic conclusion would be that humanity can do itself in very nicely if it so chooses.

Charles Darwin walks among us yet.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
adlib
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2890

posted 17 September 2002 02:42 AM      Profile for adlib     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, the title of this thread is crap, that's for sure. *Somebody* doesn't have a clue about what feminism is, or what most feminists stand for.

Besides, many women have Y chromosomes, and the opposite is also true. Not even if we are just to look at transsexual people. Many people spend their whole lives believing that people either come out with xx or xy except in "rare" circumstances, only to find out when they get their DNA tested that they themselves have a sex chromosome set that falls outside the binary sex system.

Really, the statistics on intersex persons might surprise. It's quite common, and there is a wide spectrum,,,


From: Turtle Island ;) | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca