Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Males are redundant

By 0x00 in News
Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 08:49:39 AM EST
Tags: Science (all tags)
Science

Scientists have developed a method to fertilise an embryo with genetic material from a cell other than a sperm. So far the method has only shown on female mice, but with more development this could be applied to humans.


Dr Orly Lacham-Kaplan from Monash University is one of the researchers behind this method. She said she never intended to remove men from the process. Her aim was to allow a certain group of infertile men to biologically father children.

The process though can theorethically allow the cell to be fertilised from any gender. This could allow lesbian couples to biologically procreate as pointed out by the BBC in this more in depth article. If a lesbian couple were to have a child it could only be a girl as women do not have the genetic information required for a boy.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
What would women miss the most
o Open jars 13%
o Mowed lawn 12%
o Dead spiders 20%
o Sex 27%
o Inoshiro 26%

Votes: 115
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o method to fertilise
o other than a sperm
o Dr Orly Lacham-Kaplan
o Monash University
o BBC
o article
o Also by 0x00


Display: Sort:
Males are redundant | 114 comments (109 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
Interesting. (3.81 / 16) (#1)
by Inoshiro on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 05:05:53 AM EST

"If a lesbian couple were to have a child it could only be a girl as women do not have the genetic information required for a boy."

Has anyone actually sat down and realized that perhaps the homosexual behaviour is a method of natural population control? If the herd has too many in number, and it leads to stress, more homosexual babies are born (it relates to stress chemicals in women during the point when biological drives are wired). This leads to more members who work fine, etc, but are not going to reproduce.

This is working around a natural limit. Is that good? I mean, do we really need more children? I'd be much happier if we came up with a scientific way of limiting people to one child per person (max!) and only letting them actually have the child if they were going to be good, responsible parents.



--
[ イノシロ ]
I doubt they would be bad parents (2.70 / 10) (#3)
by John Milton on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 05:10:18 AM EST

Anyone who went to those lengths to have a child probably wouldn't be too bad of a parent.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
I agree (3.20 / 5) (#6)
by ToastyKen on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 05:42:00 AM EST

I agree.. They'd certainly have a higher chance of being caring parents than all the kids being born from unprotected teenage sex...

[ Parent ]
you go to MIT? (3.83 / 6) (#10)
by dr k on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 06:10:57 AM EST

Maybe you are being sarcastic. In case not:

"Teen pregnancy" was a much bigger problem before the Pill than it is now. But why do you invoke the issue at all? Is there some profound correlation between sexual behavior and parenting skills?

And how exactly does "wanting a child" qualify one to be a good parent? Are you guaranteed a happy childhood if your parents paid a $500 deposit for your embryo? Consider the various discussions going on today about transgenic pets - hey, if you want a dog that glows green, I'm sure you'll be a great dog owner?
Destroy all trusted users!
[ Parent ]

Common sense (3.75 / 4) (#27)
by Lord13 on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 09:31:23 AM EST

This study and common sense would agree that the more parents want to have children, the better parents they will be.

Of course, there are deviations from the norm.

Growing half a tree, water it everyday.
[ Parent ]
good PR (4.50 / 2) (#52)
by dr k on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 03:34:51 PM EST

this study

"The report by the City University Family and Child Psychology Research Center in London is the first study of its kind, the researchers say."

Hmm, the first report of its kind, and it appears to be unusually biased towards ART (assisted reproductive technology) children. I have to pull out the bullshit flag on this one, it looks like a corporate study designed to give some good PR to fertility research.

I'm being a bit unfair, when I asked for a correlation I expected a list of 5 to 10 independant studies. "Common sense" doesn't tell me jack about whether well-meaning parents make good parents.
Destroy all trusted users!
[ Parent ]

"good" (none / 0) (#85)
by ToastyKen on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 12:33:43 AM EST

"Common sense" doesn't tell me jack about whether well-meaning parents make good parents.
Please read my post more carefully.. I never said parents who want a kid make "good" parents are some absolute scale. I said they have a "higher chance" of being better parents as compared to teenage parents. For this to be true, we wouldn't even need the kid-wanting parents to be particularly good.. we just need the teenage parents to be worse than normal, and I'm quite sure that people who have to deal with child when they are not even mature yet themselves and have to take care of the kid while just starting to work or going to college have a lower chance of being good parents.

[ Parent ]
Planned parenthood is a good thing (4.00 / 3) (#30)
by Skwirl on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 09:54:14 AM EST

>"Teen pregnancy" was a much bigger problem before the Pill than it is now. But
>why do you invoke the issue at all? Is there some profound correlation
>between sexual behavior and parenting skills?
Is there a correlation between sexual behavior and parenting skills? Well, a sociologist would say that there's a relation between sexual behavior and every other behavior. Anyways, I'll take the bait:

Hm, what are some traits that I associate with good parents? Resonsibility? Check. Common sense? Check. Foresight? Check. Ability to delay gratification? Check.

Here are some traits I associate with people who wait to have children: Responsibility, common sense, foresight, and ability to delay gratification. By golly, I think there's a correlation between the two sets I just listed.

Anyways, I've been listening to Loveline a lot lately, and although their callers are an extremely biased sample of the population, the show is a compelling case study in how childhood experiences affect later sexual behavior. It's a really good bet that a pregnant teenage caller has a very young mother, or that a sex addict had some wires crossed by abusive parents at some point. In many ways, human generations are stuck in a recursive loop that needs to be broken by good, planned parentage.



"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
[ Parent ]
love is good (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by anonymous cowerd on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 08:01:28 AM EST

Jeez. The tone of so many of the comments in this story depresses the Hell out of me. As though there must some external purpose to a human being's life, rather than that life being a completely adequate justification to itself. How many of you would buy into a proposition like:

You have no right to exist unless you can
a.) generate surplus value to further enrich some wealthy capitalist somewhere
b.) open jars and squash spiders for the benefit of some particular woman, who has weak wrists and is squeamish
c.) ace the admittance exam for Mensa
c.) generate many eugenically fit blonde offspring to increase and fortify der Aryan race!
etc., etc., etc.

Sound good to you? Are you willing to shuffle lemming-like off the nearest cliff if what you are does not satisfy what I want you to be?

Let's talk about desirable traits. Here are some traits I associate with good parents:

Spontaneity. Natural love. Unforced, unconditional affection. Sexual passion not entirely dominated by a puritan sense of duty tainted by guilt. Willingness to let their children grow up with at least a little freedom to be as they like, as contrasted to a compulsion to force a child into a predetermined "successful" mold.

That "ability to delay gratification" you admire so much may be a good thing, in moderation; the concept implodes, though, when you're talking about delaying gratification all the way until the afterlife...

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

America is false to the past,
false to the present,
and solemnly binds herself
to be false to the future.
- Frederick Douglas

[ Parent ]

The meaning of life (none / 0) (#108)
by Skwirl on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 01:53:04 PM EST

I believe your discomfort originates because you are viewing utilitarian arguments through the lens of existential philosophy. Although such experiences are exhilarating, noted side effects include headache, fear, trembling, Nausea, and anal bleeding1.

Luckily, the Wonders of Science2 may yet produce a cure for your ills. Gasp in amazement while I use the Miracle of "micromanipulation fertilisation"3 to produce the first offspring of existential and utilitarian parents: Existential Utilitarianism

"Impossible," you say? Allow me to give you a demonstration. The existential utilitarian individual believes in following courses of action that produce the greatest amount of personal good for the greatest duration of existence. Assuming the individual defines their own personal "good" as "pleasure" and their own personal "existence" as "alive and having free will," a simple formulation will determine the individual's desired course of action at any given moment.4

The formula dictates that it's user will seek out pleasurable experiences, but avoid overtly harmful or confining ones. For example, the individual might "delay gratification" if said gratification has the potential to create emotional or physical harm. Furthermore, if an individual comes to the a priori conclusion that other people exist5, he/she may choose to delay gratification in order to provide the traditional utilitarian goal of "the greatest good for the greatest number."

    Notes:
  1. Kierkegaard, Jacobs, Sartre. "Anus surgery - drawing from experience"
  2. ibid.
  3. Orly Lacham-Kaplan. "Master plan to rid the world of men and spiders"
  4. g = p / P(pain)2
  5. This proof is left as an exercise for the reader, but is deceptively difficult when beginning with only the "cogito, ergo sum" axiom set.


"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
[ Parent ]
correlations (2.00 / 1) (#84)
by ToastyKen on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 12:28:48 AM EST

Is there some profound correlation between sexual behavior and parenting skills?
Correlation between promiscuity and parenting skills? Probably not. Correlation between having unresponsible, unprotected sex and parenting skills? I would definitely say yes. Now, I actually have good friends I respect who have had unprotected sex in moments of weakness, so I know it's not an absolute indicator, but I would say that those who have unprotected sex a probably less responsible, on average, than those who have responsible sex and specifically choose when they want to have a child.

And how exactly does "wanting a child" qualify one to be a good parent? Are you guaranteed a happy childhood if your parents paid a $500 deposit for your embryo?
It does not qualify you, necessarily, but probabilistically speaking, there's a better chance that you're at least ready for a kid. If you're a 16-year-old, you most likely are NOT ready for a kid, and are not likely to be able to give the kid a healthy environment, since you're not even mature yet yourself. I never said there are any guarantees that parents who want a kid will be better parents. Note that I said "higher chance". There are certainly no guarantees in life, and there are probably more bad parents than good ones no matter where you look.. But I stand by my statement that parents who want a kid have a much higher chance of being good parents than those who did not expect a child, especially if they're only teenagers.

[ Parent ]
re: correlations (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by dr k on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 03:58:12 AM EST

Correlation between promiscuity and parenting skills? Probably not. Correlation between having unresponsible, unprotected sex and parenting skills? I would definitely say yes.

From this I'm supposed to deduce that: if parents who don't expect children make bad parents, parents who do want children make good parents? Okay, it is a nice sentiment, and we'd all like to believe it, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that most pregancies are more or less unexpected.

Historically this is undeniably true. The ability to control reproduction, to choose to delay having a family, only became feasible in the late 20th century. So, like it or not, your family has a history of unexpected pregnancies as a result of unresponsible, unprotected sex. (If you extend the definition of "unexpected" to mean "not a specifically desired outcome".)

Now, can you show me a correlation between your ancestors' promiscuity and their child-raising abilities?

John Milton wrote: Anyone who went to those lengths to have a child...

Okay, let's examine the situation where hopeful parents find themselves unable to conceive by the normal methods. What factors might cause these parents to go "above and beyond the call of duty" in their procreation efforts?

  • survival instincts
  • cultural values
  • religious values
  • desire for a male heir [oops, did I say that?]
  • wish to develop parenting skills
Now the last one is what we are supposedly discussing here, but it is more likely to result in adoption rather than a fertility treatment. So, in what way are religious values indicative of good parenting skills?

If you're a 16-year-old, you most likely are NOT ready for a kid

Hm, well biology says otherwise. This is the other side of the cultural coin - your culture is telling you that teen pregnancy leads to bad parenting. But if teenagers lack the ability to make responsible decisions about having families, whence does this ability appear?

If a man's willingness to ejaculate into a plastic cup were a sign of maturity, they'd make you show ID to buy Dixie cups. We've got to keep the stigmatized in their place.
Destroy all trusted users!
[ Parent ]

The Proce$$ (3.83 / 6) (#15)
by sventhatcher on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 06:33:45 AM EST

The most signifigant overpopulation problems are not in first or second world countries, most of which either have a very small population growth rate or in the case of many first world countries a negative one, but rather in third world countries where poverty runs rampant. Assuming this technology is expensive (which most new medical techniques tend to be), it's unlikely it would have a serious impact on the number of babies being born since only the top 1-6% or so of the population could probably even afford it.

Even if the process did make a small impact on the growth rate of first/second world countries, most of them aren't currently suffering from overpopulation problems anyway. Certainly the US and most European nations are not suffering from some of the more dramatic examples of overpopulation.

Obviously nations like China who have serious population problems already have regulations about child birth in place, and new techniques for impregnation wouldn't repeal them.



[ Parent ]
Overpopulation or overconsumption? (4.50 / 4) (#25)
by Skwirl on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 09:11:53 AM EST

It seems to me that the biggest problem with overpopulation is really consumption of resources. If resources weren't a problem, we could just colonize the Antarctic (oh, it'll be warm enough in a few years anyways). Therefore, population growth in "first world" countries is still a problem, since we do insane amounts of consuming compared to our poorer neighbors. According to The Union of Concerned Scientists, Americans use "one-third of the world's paper...25 percent of the oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper," but we only represent five percent of the Earth's population. I seem to recall the statistic that the average American consumes eight times more resources than someone from India. So, if you move to India, adopt their lifestyle, and have eight children, you're leaving just about the same ecological footprint as having one child here.

Some very compelling reasons for foregoing childbirth can be found at the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement's website. Although I don't agree with their goals, I certainly sympathize with their ideology.



"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
[ Parent ]
Medicine is about working around natural limits (3.33 / 3) (#19)
by jneves on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 07:32:03 AM EST

Medicine is about making people live longer and better. That means trying to work around the biggest limit nature imposes on humans: death itself. For one I don't think this is a bad thing. A hundred years ago the drugs that allowed me to survive as a baby weren't available, so if we didn't work around this natural limits I could not make this insightful comment :).

[ Parent ]
Yes, but you have to wonder. (none / 0) (#55)
by Inoshiro on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 04:47:51 PM EST

In nature, animals rise to the level of balance. Once there, they fluctuate a bit as the achieve equilibrium with their environment.

The problem is that we pushed the border out. And kept pushing. Some of the backlashes from our constant push upwards (the black death) have been pretty extreme. I'm not sure how much lonegr we can push until we tave to push outwards from this planet, in order to find enough resources to sustain ourselves.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Acheiving equilibrium (none / 0) (#77)
by pete on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 10:13:32 PM EST

I always hear this (heck, they even said it in the Matrix!) In nature, animals push until the environment pushes back. They don't have some innate sense of using "just enough" resources. If animals could overrun the environment, they would. They are trying to. We just happen to be succeeding.

--pete


[ Parent ]
Interesting question throught the ages (none / 0) (#97)
by jneves on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 06:24:28 AM EST

At one time or another there have always been man that thought that the human race was getting to big for the planet resources. Even now with an increasing population we ask the same. The solution seems always to be leaving the planet.

I know that we are not overcrowded yet, at least in europe (my country - Portugal - is about the size of the habited part of Japan and has only 10 million people). AFAIK the situation is about the same in the USA, and even Africa and Asia have complete areas that are inhabited right now and there is the technology to make them habitable. For instance, Israel and Saudi Arabia have great specialists at turning desert areas into farm land.

We haven't reached the planet limits and we're not even close. But the smallest part of us (the so called first world, that we are part of) is destroying more of the world than others. For me the real problem is that there's no education to protect the world, not really the ability for us to reproduce ourselves.

[ Parent ]

Leaving isn't the answer (none / 0) (#103)
by spiralx on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 10:47:30 AM EST

Even now with an increasing population we ask the same. The solution seems always to be leaving the planet.

Not really, not unless you're just talking about making sure humanity isn't totally wiped out. Consider if there were a thousand launches a day, each carrying a thousand people (pretty unlikely). Even at that huge rate, it would take almost 14 years to completely evacuate the planet. With more reasonable figures you're looking at hundreds of years, discounting population growth.

We really do need to sort things out here first :)

You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

Population limiter (4.00 / 2) (#44)
by davidduncanscott on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 12:05:45 PM EST

Sure, that possibility has been suggested. It may even be true -- certainly Malthus was wrong in supposing that starvation and war were the only checks on population.

As a political point, though, I wonder how long it will be before the "gay gene" concept becomes a problem. Certainly it has value in persuading people to mind their own business (it's harder to view a genetic state as "sinful", although it can be done), but it's a pretty short walk from "genetic trait" to "genetic disorder".

[ Parent ]

excuses instead of responsibility (3.00 / 2) (#50)
by gibichung on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 02:57:41 PM EST

Has anyone actually sat down and realized that perhaps the homosexual behaviour is a method of natural population control? If the herd has too many in number, and it leads to stress, more homosexual babies are born (it relates to stress chemicals in women during the point when biological drives are wired). This leads to more members who work fine, etc, but are not going to reproduce.

It what? Aside from the lack of any evidence for this (or any biological evidence for even a predisposition towards homosexuality) it doesn't even make sense. The relationship between the number of homosexuals and the population density not only isn't related, but from a casual observation seems to be the inverse. More people decide to become homosexuals in first world countries than in the much more densely populated third world (India, China, etc). Not to mention the "stress" put on first world mothers pales in comparsion to being a pregnant woman in the third world. Look at the opinions of people who say homosexuality is not a choice. They say that tools are responsible for their misuse (guns). They favor convenience over life (abortion). They want the government to control your life (affirmative action, socialist medicine, welfare, etc). The goal seems to be to take any personal responsiblity out of conscious choices. That isn't the way to go. People learn from the consequences of their actions. Rewarding good and punishing wrong helps to mold people into better citizens.

Anyway, the problem with voluntary population control is that the people who decide to do it are in more cases than not the people who should be breeding. They'd rather be more comfortable in their current life than provide for another. Kinda selfish in a way. Look at who is having kids today...

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
A closed mind is such a great thing to lose. (2.66 / 3) (#56)
by Inoshiro on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 05:02:56 PM EST

There are studies. I googled up a few easily. Like all science, it's not absolute, but it's good enough for me.

"Not to mention the "stress" put on first world mothers pales in comparsion to being a pregnant woman in the third world." Uh? Which has more stress, the working mother who is unsure about her job, or a lady who is safe in the knowledge that her husband/mate will look out for her and her 6 children? Women here have more freedom and responsibility, which leads to more stress.

But then you get weird onto a political rant about unrelated things, and make assumptions about my own views on things. Gun control? I'm for it, because if it's not there, it won't be misused -- they are too much of a responsibility for some people.

Abortion? The right to choose, not the right to screw around -- do you like painting people who choose their situation as choicless sex fiends?

Government control? I call the examples you gave socialism, in the form of our Canadion health care system, etc. That's not government control, because unlike in the US, our government doesn't have as many strange laws limiting what consenting adults do with each other behind closed doors.

And this is the weirdest bit -- "People learn from the consequences of their actions. Rewarding good and punishing wrong helps to mold people into better citizens. " This springs out of nowhere, and makes no sense. Are you implying I'm for no consequences because I'm one of them dirty baby killer abortionists? Will you come to my house and murder me "to save more lives!" ? Animal.

As for your end rant about welfare mothers, perhaps you should attack the root causes -- ignorance about sex, procreation, and protection. People will have sex, wether you like it or not, so why not give them contraceptives and educate them so they don't become welfare mothers? But, no, if you aren't having sex (or can't have it without a guilt attack), no one else can either!



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
being closed minded isn't so bad when you're right (3.00 / 2) (#59)
by gibichung on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 05:55:43 PM EST

it's good enough for me.

Well, maybe that's the problem. The bias in much of this "science" is obvious, and I'm sure a lot more could be exposed if someone felt like sorting the references. It isn't good enough for me. Be more specific when referencing, and I'll be more specific in my replies...

Women here have more freedom and responsibility, which leads to more stress.

What we have isn't more stress, but a self-important, self-centered viewpoint that exagerates problems -- in the end, the "solutions" often cause more harm than the supposed problem (anti-depressants, ADD, etc).

But then you get weird onto a political rant about unrelated things, and make assumptions about my own views on things.

Was it so weird? It was just a reference to the subject line from the post, about defering personal responsibility for choices. Yes, engaging in homosexual acts is a choice, regardless of the nature of the sexual orientation. I don't object to the right to make your own choices, only the idea that these choices should constitute a protected "right." Genetic predispositions towards alcoholism or physical violence have been established -- yet these people are expected to assume responsibility for what they do. Not a perfect analogy, but it works.

sorry to repeat, but...

But then you get weird onto a political rant about unrelated things, and make assumptions about my own views on things.

and then...

Will you come to my house and murder me "to save more lives!" ? Animal.

and...

As for your end rant about welfare mothers, perhaps you should attack the root causes -- ignorance about sex, procreation, and protection. People will have sex, wether you like it or not, so why not give them contraceptives and educate them so they don't become welfare mothers? But, no, if you aren't having sex (or can't have it without a guilt attack), no one else can either!

The root cause of these people's peril is NOT ignorance. There's no excuse to be ignorant today, anything you want to know is freely availible if you care enough to look it up yourself. And there's our problem, again. Avoiding becomming a "welfare mother" is possible, and many disadvantaged people with the right attitude do avoid it. The ones who fall into it do so as a result of their own choices. Suggesting that they're not responsible for their own fates brings you right back where we started... and shows that I was right, afterall...

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

free clue... (none / 0) (#63)
by coffee17 on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 06:35:35 PM EST

There's no excuse to be ignorant today, anything you want to know is freely availible if you care enough to look it up yourself.

not everyone knows that there is so much information around, and of those that might know there is said information not all know how to find it. ignorance is self propogating. Your ignorance of the ignorant is very apparent, how about you ammend your comment to "gibichung has no excuse to be ignorant in this day and age" and go educate yourself about what someone's life might be like if they happen to not be you. I'm guessing the majority of k5 readers came from at worst a lower middle class background which is fairly easy to rise up out of. Heck, coming from such a background, I had little pity for those who were lower class. But after living with the lower class for a bit, I can see that I knew nothing of their lives. I still know very little of what it would be like to be brought up lower class, but at least now I'm aware of my ignorance.

-coffee


[ Parent ]

my ignorance regarding the ignorant (none / 0) (#64)
by gibichung on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 07:03:41 PM EST

Your ignorance of the ignorant is very apparent,

I still know very little of what it would be like to be brought up lower class, but at least now I'm aware of my ignorance.

So that's your excuse for typing 150 words without saying anything? If I'm so ignorant, please do enlighten rather than belittle me.

I've spent plenty of time with the "lower class" and my experiences have only supported my position regarding them. Their problem is not that they're ignorant (of what, exactly?), but that they don't care. They, simply put, have a bad attitude. They scorn education and authority, they mock the successful and choose not to try. They choose to have children in their teens... they know where babies come from. They choose to disregard warnings. They smoke, they drink, they do drugs -- under no illusion that they're not hurting themselves. They could work, they choose to sit around and subsist on handouts. The only thing that keeps them ignorant is their own attitude. They choose to be who they are and they deserve it.

Of course there are exceptions to every generalized statement, and God knows I've made enough of them here, but what I've said rings true for most cases. The bad majority swamps the people who really do need help, and keeps them from getting it.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

Well, to each their own. (none / 0) (#81)
by Inoshiro on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 10:51:36 PM EST

I grew up on welfare. I personally clawed my way out by educating myself. I may not be the rule, but by your own logic (don't ruin something which has potiential -- the logic of all abortions-for-none people), I justifies having the other ones on welfare.

Anyways, there are supposed to be controls on the handing out of social support. If they aren't to your satisfaction, run for office! Plus, would you rather they be out robbing you (since they are so dirty and evil and just don't care)?



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Ein gibichung is what this country needs! (none / 0) (#99)
by gibichung on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 06:46:42 AM EST

I grew up on welfare. I personally clawed my way out by educating myself. I may not be the rule, but by your own logic (don't ruin something which has potiential -- the logic of all abortions-for-none people), I justifies having the other ones on welfare.

Well, I'm not aware of your situation so I'm obviously not qualified to comment on specifics. I'm not against welfare, I see it as an unfortunate necessity. But please don't tell me that everyone on it is a victim of circumstances. Some people are, that's why it exists. But it's a free ride for far too many people who could have gotten out.

Anyways, there are supposed to be controls on the handing out of social support. If they aren't to your satisfaction, run for office! Plus, would you rather they be out robbing you (since they are so dirty and evil and just don't care)?

I'd run for office, but I don't think I'd get very far in politics. While I value comprimise, I find it hard to incorporate the passive, please-everybody-by-never-actually-saying-anything method of speaking that dominates politics today. As for being robbed... well, they're taking my money either way, hehe. At least being robbed is a more personal experience... I could see where my handouts are going, know that I'm making a difference in someone's life...

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

"There's no excuse to be ignorant today." (none / 0) (#79)
by Inoshiro on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 10:39:20 PM EST

Please go to a high school and talk to some of the students, or at least observe them. Being "smart" isn't "cool." "Jock-O-Rama, save my soul! We're under the thumb of the beef patrol!"



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
huh? (none / 0) (#96)
by gibichung on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 06:15:02 AM EST

Being "smart" isn't "cool."

And I'm supposed to have sympathy for people who have this attitude?

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

Tsk. (none / 0) (#112)
by Inoshiro on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 09:39:34 PM EST

If you can't understand people, you're not going to be good at helping them improve their lot in life.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Oh, forgot to mention. (none / 0) (#80)
by Inoshiro on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 10:47:18 PM EST

" The ones who fall into it do so as a result of their own choices." Yes...." . Suggesting that they're not responsible for their own fates brings you right back where we started..." Nooo. " and shows that I was right, afterall..." rofl.

So because there are people who choose to not do what's best for them, you're right in that people only choose to be homosexual? Excuse my laughter, but that seems like a very, very odd leap of logic.

As for people's choice.. A person's choice is everybit as important as a person's right to freedom of speech. That freedom of speech ends before it gets to my property, much like a person's right to choose ends when it impacts my sife in any way without my consent.

Follow my logic. This lets religious people who don't want blood transfusions to avoid them, and allows people the right to self terminate. But it also stops people from forcing others into bad situations, or doing things without permission. For those of you who are against abortion, you never have to worry about it being forced on you. For those of you who need an abortion, you never have to worry about not being able to get it.

It just seems so obvious that you have to respect other people's choices, yet so few do. (Note that respect is not the same as understanding.)



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Because it's not that easy (1.00 / 1) (#87)
by Sunflower on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 12:48:11 AM EST

Unfortunately respecting people's choices is not as easy as you imply. We don't make our decisions in a vacuum (however much proponents of rationality might like to believe that's the case). It would be a lot easier if that were the case.

If we take that example of freedom of speech ending before it gets to your property. That assumes of course that there is some inherent right to property that supersedes other rights.

It gets even more complicated when we consider peoples freedom to choose. For instance, when are people free to choose, should a child who's parents don't believe in blood transfusions be given them or not? Similarly with euthanasia, it sounds good to say people should have the right to choose, but those choices are made in a context. For instance you can argue that society puts expectations and pressure on people, making them feel like if they are not generating income then they are a burden. This could influence their decision about whether to take their own life.

We should make an effort to respect people's choices, but also acknowledge that we always impact on other people and they always impact on us.

[ Parent ]

straw men are easier to pick on... (none / 0) (#98)
by gibichung on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 06:33:12 AM EST

If you could please try to focus on what I say rather than your own interpretation of my opinions' natural extensions, I'd appreciate it.

So because there are people who choose to not do what's best for them, you're right in that people only choose to be homosexual? Excuse my laughter, but that seems like a very, very odd leap of logic.

I was refering to being homosexual, and demanding that people respect you for your decision. I object to the idea that a choice that someone chooses to make public should have no consequences. I object to the idea that immunity to the consequences of such a choice should be a legally protected right.

That freedom of speech ends before it gets to my property, much like a person's right to choose ends when it impacts my sife in any way without my consent.

Since "freedom of choice" (regarding abortion) has an impact on someone who has no chance to voice their opinion on the matter (the fetus, and often the father), how can you be for it, by that logic?

It just seems so obvious that you have to respect other people's choices, yet so few do. (Note that respect is not the same as understanding.)

I think that everyone should respect a person's right to make their own decisions, but they don't have to respect the person for making them. We're back to "choices should have consequences" again.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

Not quite. (none / 0) (#113)
by Inoshiro on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 09:51:10 PM EST

"Since "freedom of choice" (regarding abortion) has an impact on someone who has no chance to voice their opinion on the matter (the fetus, and often the father), how can you be for it, by that logic?

A fetus is not a person. Until something displays sentience, or can be proven to have a well-enough developed nueral strata to house sentience, it is not any better than a vegetable. And if it cannot survive outside of its parent, it is still at the level of parasite. To force a woman to bear a child she does not want is to regress her to the state of slave womb.

And I do support the choice of the male as much as the female. I said so myself! What part of my statement about choice eludes you? Her choice would impinge upon him, so he has a say in the matter. However, if she does not want to bear it, he can't force her. Right now no technical alternative exists (he bears the child via artificial womb, or something else).. so the male's choice can't be 100% enforced. But there aren't always easy answers te real life problems, are there?

"I was refering to being homosexual, and demanding that people respect you for your decision. I object to the idea that a choice that someone chooses to make public should have no consequences."

Good for you. But you should still not discriminate based on sex, sexual orientation, etc. The only logical discrimination is based on ability. Those not fit for the job aren't hired for the job.

" I think that everyone should respect a person's right to make their own decisions, but they don't have to respect the person for making them. We're back to "choices should have consequences" again."

Except 1) I agreed that choices have consequences a long time aco, and 2) you just agreed with my statement that everyone has a right to person choice, even if you don't respect it. The rest is just semantics.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
pot... kettle... (none / 0) (#62)
by coffee17 on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 06:28:24 PM EST

This springs out of nowhere, and makes no sense. Are you implying I'm for no consequences because I'm one of them dirty baby killer abortionists?

Ok, everything up to this point seems fairly well thought out, and I'm thinking 4 for the comment, maybe 5 if it closes well. Then...

Will you come to my house and murder me "to save more lives!" ? Animal.

Uck...

-coffee


[ Parent ]

Pleh. (none / 0) (#78)
by Inoshiro on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 10:37:39 PM EST

The guy said "convienence over life," how does that cover a rape victim, teen pregnancy (where you'd have te drop out and becaume a welfare mom to raise it), etc?

Anti-abortionists seem unwilling to let people make their own choices, and extremists have murdered abortion providing doctors.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Meh (none / 0) (#105)
by coffee17 on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 11:44:27 AM EST

I'm not sure entirely what I was thinking yesterday, but when reading your post that I replied to I got the impression that you were getting mad at him for making broad assumptions about you. When you replied with the broad assumption that he's an abortion killing nutter it wrecked the flow. Upon rereading today, I see how it flowed a bit better, he accuses you of having abortions for fun and profit and then you accuse him of coming to kill you. While your post still seems rude it seems less so today...

-coffee


[ Parent ]

Probably not (none / 0) (#67)
by cyberformer on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 07:39:43 PM EST

Any form of population control (including this one) is very unlikely to occur naturally. Though a herd might benefit from members who don't try to reproduce, an individual will rarely put the herd's interests above its own desire to perpetuate its genes.

This only applies to natural, unconscious behaviour (humans often choose to override their genetic urges and not breed like rabbits), but sexual orientation is usually not a conscious choice.

[ Parent ]

Wow (3.66 / 9) (#2)
by John Milton on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 05:07:48 AM EST

*sigh* It seems like the natural male instincts to mate and kill are becoming less useful every day. We're losing job security.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


Fight the matriarchy (4.66 / 6) (#7)
by Glacky on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 05:49:13 AM EST

Build an artificial womb. Then we're all superfluous.

[ Parent ]
Yeah! (3.50 / 2) (#31)
by dgwatson on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 09:55:39 AM EST

That'll sure show 'em!

Uh... what's the point? ;)

[ Parent ]
The real reason for this research (none / 0) (#114)
by Glacky on Fri Jul 13, 2001 at 07:18:31 AM EST

Well, once men /and/ women are no longer necessary to continue the human race, we'll have finally divorced procreation from sex and we'll all be bonking like rabbits, simply because it's fun.
No worries about having 'accidents' because no right thinking person would let that happen any more.

I can't wait.

[ Parent ]
science is the enemy of little "Captain Ameri (3.33 / 3) (#9)
by eLuddite on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 05:51:29 AM EST

Yeah, ok, technically, if that's your thing, but that doesnt mean they wont call us to lift heavy objects, see, so I think we deserve some kind of silent partner action for that, no? Definitely.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

101 uses for men (4.00 / 1) (#33)
by speek on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 09:57:55 AM EST

And get objects down from high places.....
And kill spiders.....
And....

Keep the list going brothers!

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

pish (2.50 / 2) (#40)
by persimmon on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 11:28:57 AM EST

I do all the spider killing in this house. But the boy does the laundry, and keeps the NT and BSD boxes here working.
--
It's funny because it's a blancmange!
[ Parent ]
I'm in a feisty mood today (1.00 / 2) (#42)
by speek on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 11:41:27 AM EST

Well, I've heard you Asian women have different uses for your men ;-)

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

only one word (4.00 / 1) (#36)
by jayfoo2 on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 10:54:56 AM EST

jars

[ Parent ]
But .. (3.25 / 4) (#13)
by dzeroo on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 06:15:55 AM EST

I foresee a lot of positions opening at the New York Stock Eggchange. Buy one, get one free.


== chicks are for fags ==


[ Parent ]
Great! (2.60 / 5) (#4)
by decaf_dude on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 05:20:34 AM EST

First they made jars that open easily, now they invent conception process that needs no sperm?

What types of cells are required? Could the fingernail do? That's scary, imagine: "Oh, I chipped me nail! Ah, well, I did want that baby girl for a while now..."

That's it, now we'll have to start taking our women shopping for shoes! Who said policy of appeasement doesn't work?

--
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89158&cid=7713039


infertile (3.83 / 6) (#8)
by dr k on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 05:49:45 AM EST

I find the whole concept of fertility research to be a bit distressing. Is the human race dying out? Is this research needed for genome research? Who is paying for it?

I can understand research into sexual dysfunction, which has an impact on quality of life. This research, of course, tends to offer more benefits to men.

When you consider that most fertilization techniques place a large burden on women, you've got a lot of research taking place that doesn't do a lot for sexual equality. Yes, you can talk about lesbians having children, but being a lesbian isn't exactly the core social problem being faced by women around the world.

But I digress...
Destroy all trusted users!

re: infertile (4.00 / 3) (#28)
by iGrrrl on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 09:31:47 AM EST

Is this research needed for genome research? Who is paying for it?
Needed? Um... It's certainly helpful in some ways. As for who pays for it, right now the work is being done in Australia, and I don't know how their funding works.

When you consider that most fertilization techniques place a large burden on women, you've got a lot of research taking place that doesn't do a lot for sexual equality. Yes, you can talk about lesbians having children, but being a lesbian isn't exactly the core social problem being faced by women around the world.
Yes and Amen! to that last. The thing about high-level fertility interventions that I find to be interesting is that women going through the treatments have depression indices near those of women undergoing breast cancer treatments. Not for me, thanks.

I view all this technology as a toy of the comparitively rich and spoiled. The investigator claims it targets infertile males who want to have a child with their genetic material. Donated sperm isn't good enough for them. Somehow I have trouble considering the "problem" to be a societal priority.

remove obvious illegal character in email address
[ Parent ]

Infertility treatments (4.00 / 1) (#48)
by ucblockhead on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 12:57:30 PM EST

The hormone treatments involved in certain female infertility treatments are a real bitch.

I've often thought that the increasingly aggressive fertility treatments are slowly degrading the fertility of the race as a whole.

I am quite puzzled by the application of this to male infertility because while male infertility is common, most "infertile" men can create some sperm, just not many, or tweaked out ones. One would think that having those nice haploid cells available for use with little effort would make this pointless.

In fact, one would think that this would work better combining the genetic material from two eggs, rather than getting a diploid cell and somehow screwing with it.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

Agree! (4.50 / 2) (#41)
by catseye on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 11:29:37 AM EST

I, too, find infertility research problematic. We are in no danger of running out of people any time soon. In fact, just the opposite.

Yes, it's sad if someone is unable to reproduce, but perhaps that's nature's way of population control. Maybe people who cannot breed SHOULD NOT breed. (I feel differently about someone who's been damaged by an injury, for what it's worth.)

I find it obscene that people who know they have disorders that they will pass to their children continue to breed, even though there is a good chance that their children's lives will be full of the same pain, suffering and misery their lives are. I've even asked people with hereditary physical and psychiatric problems why they had children even though they knew that their children would be as bad off as them, and universally they stated that they didn't feel that they should be denied the opportunity to be parents. I really didn't think it was possible to be that selfish and self-centered, but I should have known better.



[ Parent ]
Definately agree (none / 0) (#61)
by coffee17 on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 06:16:59 PM EST

I've even asked people with hereditary physical and psychiatric problems why they had children even though they knew that their children would be as bad off as them, and universally they stated that they didn't feel that they should be denied the opportunity to be parents.

Quite unbelievibly selfish of the parents to insist at their child's expense that they should be able to be parents. My thoughts are that such people should adopt if they really want kids.

But not all people are that bad, if I ever had kids, I'd likely pass on genes related to depression and alcoholism (as well as likely passing on bad parenting memes). However, I've gone and had a vasectomy, no kids for me. But to be honest, I did it out of selfish reasons as I hate kids, so perhaps all of us (humans) are really that bad.

-coffee


[ Parent ]

Good to see eugenics are alive and well! (none / 0) (#88)
by Sunflower on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 12:58:17 AM EST

Yes, I agree that a lot of fertility research is a waste of time and effort. But I can't believe the rest of your comment. I hope that you are just trolling, but this deserves a reply anyway.

even though there is a good chance that their children's lives will be full of the same pain, suffering and misery their lives are. Hello! Who says that just because you have a disability your life is full of misery and suffering. Many people who have disabilities live full and happy lives, and contribute to the betterment of society. Yes sometimes they have restrictions and sometimes suffering. But let's be realistic, who doesn't face suffering and misery sometimes? Bringing any child into the world is subjecting it to the possibility of misery.

[ Parent ]

Pff (1.09 / 11) (#11)
by dzeroo on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 06:11:46 AM EST

Great. More people.


== chicks are for fags ==


I don't think so (3.00 / 7) (#16)
by Tatarigami on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 06:50:23 AM EST

As long as there are spiders to kill, men will never be redundant!

:o)


Oops (3.00 / 2) (#17)
by Tatarigami on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 06:51:34 AM EST

Missed the poll option. And here I thought I was being really clever, too.

[ Parent ]
I (female!) kill spiders by myself, (none / 0) (#18)
by nefertari on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 07:31:28 AM EST

but i have to do it for my sister. She can't kill anything that looks as it is alive (for her that's moving). On the other hand she is studying biology (especially genetics) and has no problem with killing bacteria.

[ Parent ]
Don't kill spiders! (3.66 / 3) (#24)
by Ludwig on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 08:46:26 AM EST

It's bad luck. Seriously, just slip them into a jar and put them outside so they can keep eating mosquitoes and flies and such. Spiders are our friends, mostly -- I'd make an exception for brown recluses, black widows, etc.

[ Parent ]
Thats all well and good... (none / 0) (#70)
by 0x00 on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 08:11:58 PM EST

Until you have lived in a location where spiders a prevelant (Australia - especially in bushy areas).

Have you ever tried to get a huntsmen the size of your handspan in a jar? Its hard enough to run them down and kill them. You can try to ignore them but this only lasts until you turn the shower on and they run up your leg - this is not the most pleasent experience around. Another favourite is to sit on the back of your towel thats hanging in the bathroom. These are big ugly spiders that are very common, are not venemous and do bite (and it hurts I can tell you)

--

0x00

spider clown; 8 big feet and not very funny.

[ Parent ]
Confession (none / 0) (#60)
by Tatarigami on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 06:10:15 PM EST

I (female!) kill spiders by myself

That could make you more manly than I am. Although some of my fondest childhood memories involve chasing my sister with a spider, I could never bring myself to squish my eight-legged co-conspirators afterwards.

:o)


[ Parent ]
...and necessarily so (3.33 / 3) (#20)
by axxeman on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 07:44:53 AM EST

Redundant as in RAID.

lec·tur·er (lkchr-r) n. Abbr. lectr: graduate unemployable outside the faculty.

Redundant as in RAID (3.33 / 3) (#21)
by billybob2001 on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 07:55:51 AM EST

Redundant as in RAID

Hang on, doen't the I in RAID stand for "Inexpensive"?

Please explain where I went wrong.

[ Parent ]

yes and no (3.00 / 1) (#29)
by axxeman on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 09:35:46 AM EST

Depending whom you speak to, it's either "inexpensive" or "independent".

Which of those kinds of Redundant Dicks we are is debatable.

lec·tur·er (lkchr-r) n. Abbr. lectr: graduate unemployable outside the faculty.
[ Parent ]

lesbians the big issue? (3.50 / 6) (#22)
by Pink Daisy on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 08:24:58 AM EST

I chose Inoshiro in the poll. In my mind, he's such a god-like figure that he means "all of the above."

Kind of interesting that all the news stories mention the lesbian aspect, then add at the bottom the disclaimer that although an egg can be fertelized from another female, there is no proof that it will be able to grow, and in fact there is reason to believe it may still require paternal DNA.

I think they are just doing it to hype the lesbian part. Probably the salablity of sensationalism is the only reason they make it the focus.

Good-Bye Adoption? (4.11 / 9) (#23)
by sneakcjj on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 08:39:58 AM EST

Assuming this works...and infertile couples (or lesbians) can bring a child into this world, will the number of adoptions drop from their already low numbers to something even less?

The usual candidates to adopt are people who can't have a child on their own. If suddenly they can have their own child, nine times out of ten (I believe) they will decide to have their own.

There will always be children placed into the adoption system and if less and less people are adopting, this system will become overloaded. What will happen then?

It doesn't matter if CAN...the question is SHOULD.

People miss this point alot (4.00 / 3) (#37)
by der on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 10:55:59 AM EST

... but I think it's important. I have no idea what "the numbers" are relating to adoptions nowadays, but, I'd much rather be at home with my family as I am now than sitting in some "kids without homes shelter" or being shuffled around between foster parents (yes, I'm adopted).

I usually think of this sort of thing in abortion arguments (I could have never even been born if it wasn't for adoption.. and I don't like that idea all that much), but it applies here as well. I suppose some people just want to have "their own" children.

[ Parent ]
Publication by press conference (4.88 / 18) (#26)
by iGrrrl on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 09:13:43 AM EST

This has hit the news media far in advance of any peer-reviewed publication -- something that always bugs me. From what I can dig up, I have a number of thoughts on the work:

First, even in the laboratory they have produced no live births. It looks as if "success" has been measured by whether the manipulated eggs go through the first few embryonic divisions. It's a start, for sure, but it does not indicate that the technique will be in the clinics next month. Far longer.

Second, I can't tell how they did this. An editorial comment said something about this being the same technique as Dolly the sheep, but that doesn't appear to be the case. As we all know, fertilized eggs contain half their genetic component from the mother, half from the father's sperm. This article implies that rather than put a new set of DNA in an enucleated egg, as was the case with Dolly, they're mixing the chromosomes in the normal ratio -- half from the egg, half from the donor. They say they separate the normal diploid chromosomal complement of the donor cells by "chemical" means in order to get rid of the "extra" set. I would love to know how they did this.

Third, here's one of the more important lines from the BBC article linked above:

However, this could prove problematical as aspects of development are controlled by a paternal gene.
This may have something to do with why they have had no live births. There's a little thing called parental imprinting, where the physical structure of the genes on the chromosome can be different depending on which parent supplied the gene. In some cases, the paternal gene is the only one available for expression. This hurdle is a big one.

Fourth and last, on that note, somatic cell chromosomes are different from those in the gametes. Someone has already asked the question about aging, noting that Dolly's genetic age appears to be much older than her calendar age. Somatic (body) cells take a lot more abuse than the eggs or the cells which produce sperm. The chromosomes of eggs are made before birth and kept on well-protected hold until needed. The cells that make sperm are as isolated from chemicals, etc., as is the brain. The blood-testes barrier is quite similar to the blood-brain barrier. The rest of your body takes the hits, and some of those hits (oh, say, sunlight) damage the DNA.

I went looking in the medical literature to see whether the researcher had much of a publication history. She doesn't, but she seems to have made some inroads into activating eggs without sperm interaction, which is necessary in nature. Her most recent publication (I don't know whether that link will work.) has nothing to do with the question of how they split up the diploid chromosome complement, darn it. I am curious.

The bottom line is that while sperm is (biologically) cheap and easy for most mammals to obtain, it isn't yet unnecessary.

remove obvious illegal character in email address

Lamarckian evolution is real! (3.00 / 1) (#32)
by speek on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 09:56:01 AM EST

Heh, if we can use somatic cell chromosomes to reproduce, then acquired traits would be inherited. Cool. Too bad the only likely acquired traits will be screw-ups. But, that's no different from regular mutational changes.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

In a word: No. (4.60 / 5) (#35)
by iGrrrl on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 10:20:00 AM EST

*sigh*

I knew someone would jump on that. Parental imprinting in the sense that it's used here does not change DNA sequence, just availability of genes. To open yet another source for jokes and misunderstanding, let me use the example of the "beautiful buttocks" gene.

A gene in sheep which causes larger muscular development of the hindquarters (a desirable trait in an animal raised for meat, and hence "beautiful buttocks") is not on the Y chromosome, yet can only be functionally inherited from a male. Something about the father's chromosomes allows the gene to be expressed.

This is not a Lamarckian aquired trait. No amount of the father working his hindquarters to increase muscle mass would have changed the way the genes are coded.

remove obvious illegal character in email address
[ Parent ]

Happy-Fun-iGrrl (2.50 / 2) (#39)
by speek on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 11:26:37 AM EST

Do not joke with Happy-Fun-iGrrrl....

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Not to mention (3.00 / 2) (#34)
by ichimunki on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 10:16:17 AM EST

Not to mention that this is with rodents, right? Sure, they might be mammals, as are humans, but that doesn't mean the technique will be equally successful with humans (not saying it WON'T be, but it is possible that it just might not work on us). Kangaroos are mammals, but female kangaroos can "choose" the sex of their offspring (they usually have females first, then males as they age) and they can hold fertilized ova for later use (i.e. have one joey this year, and another next year, all from a single mating). Even among fairly similar creatures reproduction is not necessarily going to work the same for all those creatures (standard argument against animal testing).

[ Parent ]
Um (3.00 / 6) (#43)
by jethro on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 12:04:18 PM EST

Kangaroos are mammals
I thought kangaroos are marsupials?

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
[ Parent ]
Marsupials are mammals. (nt) (4.00 / 2) (#47)
by ucblockhead on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 12:46:00 PM EST


-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
Moderation (5.00 / 2) (#89)
by John Milton on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 01:57:52 AM EST

I can't believe that there are two 1's and a 2 on this as I speak. The poster was wrong. This is neither spam nor noise nor inane. It is a misunderstanding on the posters part. It's actually a very reasonable mistake. Someone took the time to point out his error politely. Three others took the opportunity to mod him down.

<sarcasm>I guess we should mod people down for trying to contribute to discussion.</sarcasm>


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 1) (#102)
by spiralx on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 10:42:34 AM EST

A 2 is an average comment as I recall, and putting it down to 1 for being wrong is hardly unfair is it? Personally I wouldn't rate it at all, but that's not moderation abuse at all.

You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

I guess it's a matter of definition (none / 0) (#109)
by John Milton on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 03:51:19 PM EST

There are two suggested methods of moderation. The second is to consider a 3 as an average comment. That's what I usually use. I don't think this is worth a 3, but there was no point in moderating it at all. I would have left it alone too. It's like kicking someone when they're down.

Oh yeah, I didn't really say this was moderation abuse. I don't think it is. I just thought it was crappy.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
Yes, and... (3.00 / 2) (#106)
by ucblockhead on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 12:56:47 PM EST

And frankly, the polite correction was hardly worth a five or perhaps even a three.

This is one reason I'm mostly giving up on moderation. People seem to either have forgotten, or never understood the intent. It is about the quality of contribution, not factual correctness, or agreement with opinions.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

Devil's advocate: Good riddence (2.42 / 7) (#38)
by Skwirl on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 11:26:19 AM EST

I think our society would be better off without traditionally male qualities like aggression, domination and greed.

As a male, I have inherited a lot of socially constructed and testosterone driven traits that bother me ethically. For instance, I can't help but gawk at beautiful women, but hypocritically, I feel that our culture's beauty myth is hazardous. Furthermore, the male gaze in media and reality metaphorically dissects women into their component breast, butt, face and thighs. Part of me wants to go "that's horrible!"... and another part wants to go "mmmmm... breasts."

What's really disturbing is that the popular image of the "modern" woman incorporates all kinds of traditionally masculine traits. The modern woman should be competitive, sexually aggressive and vain. Seen the trailers for Legally Blond yet? Yay! Girl power a go-go! Well, that's fair, men shouldn't have a monopoly on chasing and oggling. However, there's no movement to transfer traditionally feminine traits to men. A guy who quits his job to care for his children will probably be joshed for being "whipped." A man who cries in public is a wuss, well, unless he's just been hit in the balls, but then it's a America's Funniest Home Videos clip.

Many people believe that we're in the middle of a masculinity crisis, which is why things like The Man Show and the Promise Keepers have gained popularity. The idea is that post-WWII boys were promised the world, but didn't get it because of corporate control and the lack of bonding rituals such as war and all-male institutions. Social achievements have downsized masculinity.

And now, it appears that scientific achievements will make us obsolete...



"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
I am modern woman, hear me roar (4.20 / 5) (#45)
by Keslin on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 12:08:34 PM EST

As a 'modern woman', I sort of object to the idea that a popular cultural image is what motivates us to be competitive, sexually aggressive and vain. Your post seems to imply that any woman with those traits is exhibiting them simply because it's cool now and society expects us to.

The truth is simply that there are people that are competitive and there are people that are not. There are people that are sexually aggressive, and there are people that are not. Same with vanity. Some of the people that exhibit all of those traits are women. This has always been the case, but women with those traits have traditionally concealed them. We are moving into times that allow people to express their personalities regardless of gender, and that can only be a good thing. There is nothing at all disturbing about living in a world that can idolize both James Bond and Lara Croft.

I also have news from the female front on your traits that you consider masculine. Gawking at beautiful people, lusting after body parts, etc. Women do that too. Some more than others, but women have the same traits. Some of us are even more competitive and sexually aggressive than the men (or women) that we share our lives with, I certainly am.

I feel that I am extremely fortunate to live in a time when I can openly express all of my personality traits and not feel overwhelming amounts of pressure to conform to a soft, cuddly, passive image of femininity. My version of femininity is assertive, with claws, not passive and docile. My mother went through her own personal hell fifty years ago to leave Japan, marry an American, and create a life in a place where her daughter could live a fulfilling life. I am eternally grateful to feminists like my mother, as well as Western feminists that paved the way for me to be able to live my life as a strong and assertive woman. I certainly don't find the world that they have helped to create "distasteful" as you do.

I won't dispute your notion that we are having a masculinity crisis. I happen to agree that we have spent so much time encouraging women's empowerment that men have neglected the task of finding their own voice. I do object to the idea that a modern woman is just a construct of popular media though.

I exist, you can't delete me. You might as well adjust your world view to encompass me. I am competitive, sexually aggressive and certainly more than a little vain. I am proud of what I am though, and I am proud to live in a time and a part of the world where I am accepted for who I am. Don't try to tell me that I am a societal construct. If I had been born fifty years ago, then I would be forced to spend my life playing the role of a passive and demure Japanese woman with no sense of empowerment whatsoever. That is what I find distasteful, not little girls dreaming of growing up to be Jane Bond.

-Keslin, the naked nerd girl.

[ Parent ]

(OT) Keslin website (none / 0) (#46)
by Lord13 on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 12:30:05 PM EST

-Keslin, the naked nerd girl.

Being the typical male, after I read this post and saw the signature, I clicked on your website only to see:

ACCESS DENIED
Please see the Internet Acceptable Use Policy.

X-STOP TM
Internet Content Management

It must be good. Damn proxy. =)

Growing half a tree, water it everyday.
[ Parent ]
except boys are not allowed to be, at all (3.83 / 6) (#49)
by Quietti on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 01:17:34 PM EST

I am a very colourfull individual: I am both extremely sensitive and emotional, as well as excessively competitive and sexual in nature. From that perspective, I am not much different than you, Keslin. Additionally, I have never had any such a thing remotely resembling a masculinity crisis, quite the contrary: I have always had a very clear picture of my identity, my goals and my ambitions.

What sets Keslin and I appart is this: as a boy, I am not allowed to display the sort of aggressive sex drive or dominating caracteristics that my forefathers were allowed to enforce, but neither am I allowed to openly be the sort of sensitive, loving, caring man that wishes he could just drop out of the work force for a few years and raise his kids at home.

In the face of a custody court battle, a mother is always a mother and a father is always the familly wallet; in the social mentality, a sensitive man is evidently a gay in self-denial and no way could he be a plain old-fashion heterosexual; in a politically correct world, agressivity and competitivity , even verbal, is presumed to be hinting at another potential rapist, random shooter or wife beater, if not at least a sexual harrasser in full power at the workplace.

This attitude starts at kindergarten, where a boy cannot as much as yell or complain about anything; he has to agree to whatever girls around him want, because otherwise parents get told that their son has an antisocial behavior that might hint at some future wife beating or criminal path, while girls are basically allowed to do and say anything they want. Afterwards, the learning models at comprehensive school and constant "equal opportunity" programs further erode the place of men, by nearly eliminating their chances of getting into college in the first place because a mainly female teaching staff enpowered with a feminist agenda fails to address male learning patterns thus leading to increasingly bad scholar performances for males, then making it nearly impossible for a (white) male to get a job because of "equal opportunity" hiring policies in the second place.

In other words, no matter what I might be as a person, it systematically is shuned by society and often is so using the full extent of the feminazi agenda as reflected in those "the victim's heresay is admissible proof leading to condemnation of yet another male oppressor." type of laws already present in California and New Zealand. This has on many occasions reached the ridiculous extreme where I was subjected to sexual harrasment from women, but was clearly told by authorities that reporting the incident and going ahead with a formal complain or lawsuit would most likely backfire, because judicial tradition is about finding the male guilty and victimizing females.

So, Kaslin, I got news for you too: none of what you stated regarding female drive is new to me, but it does seem that what men have to endure nowadays, constantly having to watch what they do or say for fear of giving ammunition to career driven feminazis willing to get a false trial going to discredit guys and clear them out of their promotion path - to only mention that particular tactic - is something you should learn about. In pushing for their agenda, feminists have made masculinity illegal and, in some cases, criminal. So much for sexual "equality"...



--
The whole point of civilization is to reduce how much the average person has to think. - Stef Murky
[ Parent ]
Celebrity Sighting (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by davidduncanscott on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 05:03:15 PM EST

I am a very colourfull individual: I am both extremely sensitive and emotional, as well as excessively competitive and sexual in nature.
Christ, it's Prince, posting right here on k5!

[ Parent ]
Boy Power! (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by Keslin on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 07:56:08 PM EST

...by nearly eliminating their chances of getting into college in the first place because a mainly female teaching staff enpowered with a feminist agenda fails to address male learning patterns thus leading to increasingly bad scholar performances for males, then making it nearly impossible for a (white) male to get a job because of "equal opportunity" hiring policies in the second place.
I sympathize with your position certainly, but doesn't the above seem a bit paranoid? Having been a grade school teacher, I can confidently say that teachers aren't pushing a "feminist agenda" on children. I wanted my male students to grow up and go to college and be productive members of society just as much as I wanted that from my female students. The idea that I would intentionally withhold education from male students to prevent them from succeeding is just a little strange. I understand your overall point, but trying to pin the plight of the disenfranchised white male on teachers is probably not the most productive way to look at the situation.
...constantly having to watch what they do or say for fear of giving ammunition to career driven feminazis willing to get a false trial going to discredit guys and clear them out of their promotion path - to only mention that particular tactic
Again, probably not the most productive way of looking at the situation. Liberal use of the word "feminazi" is really not going to make any friends for you on the playground, trust me. I would like to formally dispute the notion, though, that women as a collective intentionally pursue litigation against professional competitors simply to eliminate them from the promotion pool. In most cases women that bring discrimination or sexual harassment suits against their employer are immediately fired, or they bring the suit after having been fired.
In pushing for their agenda, feminists have made masculinity illegal and, in some cases, criminal. So much for sexual "equality"...
Well, I can at least agree with this part. Women have struggled to find their voice, and we are finally being rightly recognized for our capabilities. Men have always gone through life simply assuming that they didn't have to fight for their rights. Well, men have competition now, like it or not. You fight for your rights, I'll fight for mine.

-Keslin, the naked nerd girl.

[ Parent ]
not paranoia, just the facts 'mam (none / 0) (#95)
by Quietti on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 05:46:05 AM EST

Having been a grade school teacher, I can confidently say that teachers aren't pushing a "feminist agenda" on children. I wanted my male students to grow up and go to college and be productive members of society just as much as I wanted that from my female students.

I have also been a teacher, from elementary all the way to college level (university level starting this year too); I have seen the same disdainfull attitude towards boys and masculinity in general. Please take note that what you as an individual fostered on your pupils of either sex does not represent a majority among the samples I have seen in two countries (namely: Canada and Finland).

I would like to formally dispute the notion, though, that women as a collective intentionally pursue litigation against professional competitors simply to eliminate them from the promotion pool. In most cases women that bring discrimination or sexual harassment suits against their employer are immediately fired, or they bring the suit after having been fired.

Sorry, but I have seen this done too often, in both countries where I have lived. Also, in both of those countries, a complain is a very serious matter and the "oppressor" is usually the one who is preventively discharged from duties, if not formally laid off without due process.

Men have always gone through life simply assuming that they didn't have to fight for their rights. Well, men have competition now, like it or not. You fight for your rights, I'll fight for mine.
  • First, maybe the fact that I was raised in a truely equalitarian environment explains why neither males or females around me feel the need to fight for anything.
  • Second, the mere notion of a competition and fight has to stop, for it is what is poisoning the atmosphere between males and females, especially in intercultural matters.
  • Last, no, I am not paranoid, I merely take good note of what happens to loved ones around me, males and females alike, and cannot help but notice how girls have it far easier than boys nowadays, both at school and on the workplace.

(OT) Keslin's site

Keslin was apparently born the proud daughter of an eurasian couple whose japanese mother figure was a proud feminist. Nature also gifted her with a physically attractive figure she has been able to capitalize on and with the talent to pursue two degrees. Maybe she ought to realize that most men and women are not as fortunate as her and should eat a slice of humble pie. Nice bossoms, clean design and good attention to ensuring correct rendering on several browsers are all good things, but too much of anything can be lethal; maybe you will find that to be a hindrance in the long run: people tend to have a problem with overachievers, in general; it reminds them of their "average people's humble limitations" and thus angers them. I know, I've been there myself: I am an overachiever by nature. You can of course ignore the above and keep on fighting all the fights you can muster, real or imaginary ones, if you find that more stimulating...



--
The whole point of civilization is to reduce how much the average person has to think. - Stef Murky
[ Parent ]
"Can't we all just get along?" (none / 0) (#104)
by Keslin on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 11:18:19 AM EST

Everybody really can stop marketing my web site for me. Really. Seriously. I do enough marketing on my own, we really don't need to be constantly talking about it here. The note in my signature really is plenty enough to keep me happy.

Anyway, most of what we are discussing here are things that we are just never going to agree on. No amount of debate is going to change either of our minds on things like whether feminist teachers hold little boys back academically. There really isn't much point ramming our horns together over opinions that aren't going to change. I do have a comment on one of your itemized points though:

Second, the mere notion of a competition and fight has to stop, for it is what is poisoning the atmosphere between males and females, especially in intercultural matters.
Without the notion of gender competition, I would not have the right to vote in the country that I live in. Without women standing up for their rights, I certainly would never have been admitted to law school, or into my state's bar association. I may have never even been taught to read.

From a male point of view, maybe it would be better to live in a world where women never started to compete with men. We would still be at home, barefoot and pregnant, producing litters of little men that could go and rule the world for us while our daughters served their interests passively. That doesn't sound like such a great idea to me though.

-Keslin, the naked nerd girl.

[ Parent ]

america versus the world (none / 0) (#107)
by Quietti on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 01:32:04 PM EST

Without the notion of gender competition, I would not have the right to vote in the country that I live in.
That is exactly the problem, right there: your live in United-States, land of the non-free. In Finland, equality has always been a fact of life and was constitutionally enforced since 1918; there are still slight salarial discrepancies between males and females (very small ones) but overall the number of females making it into university and, more importantly, making it to graduation is superior to the number of males, on both counts.

From a male point of view, maybe it would be better to live in a world where women never started to compete with men. We would still be at home, [while men ] could go and rule the world for us while our daughters served their interests passively.

Let me introduce a revolutionary notion to you: it's called, the non-compete clause where everybody wins. In this country, there is no such a thing as hiring quotas, no concept of helping girls choose "non-traditional" professions. Why not? Because students of both sexes are freely allowed to enter university, based on the sole merits of their academic achievements, and are hired indistinctively of their sex. There is no competition, because there is no need to compete. It doesn't miraculously make daughters extatic about Computer Sciences, but then neither should it. Systematically pushing girls to choose science and technology when their natual inclination is elsewhere is a really dumb strategy; letting either sexes freely choose where they wanna go without putting any pressure works best and this country is a living proof of that.

If America doesn't offer you this, then stop calling it the "land of the free" and make it better or move out of there, but stop it with the feminist bullshit.



--
The whole point of civilization is to reduce how much the average person has to think. - Stef Murky
[ Parent ]
girl power! (4.00 / 2) (#51)
by gibichung on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 03:12:02 PM EST

A post about feminism and a signature that says "click here to pay money to look at me naked." You're no better than Britney Spears singing about girl power. The right to sell yourself is not female empowerment. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the words, but coming from you they sound like a joke.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
ah, stuff it (2.50 / 2) (#53)
by persimmon on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 03:53:02 PM EST

Have you read Keslin's statement on why she has a "click here to pay money to look at me naked" site? It should be a perfectly valid part of empowerment, male or female, to sell pictures of oneself naked and not feel demeaned from the experience. The bits of Keslin's site that I've seen look very tasteful and considered.

And that's substantially different than Britney's uber-polished girly-girl still-a-virgin sexy pop-crap. That validates the virgin/whore dichotomy, as does your bit of rubbish on feminism and nakedness. Yeah, go read some Annie Sprinkle, or some Susie Bright, or some Nina Hartley.


--
It's funny because it's a blancmange!
[ Parent ]
well... (none / 0) (#54)
by gibichung on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 04:41:56 PM EST

No, I hadn't read her site.

Now that I have, I find my disgust replaced with disappointment.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

Feminism and sexuality not mutually exclusive (4.00 / 1) (#65)
by Keslin on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 07:22:53 PM EST

There is a popular attitude floating around these days that says that feminism and sexuality are mutually exclusive. The funny thing is that most of the people that think this are men, I still haven't quite figured out what to make of that. Do you really think that Susie Bright isn't a feminist because she has made her career in the sex industry? What about Camille Paglia? Carol Queen? Do you really think that a man can write off all of sex-positive feminism because he doesn't think that women should be expressing their sexuality? It isn't for a man to decide how a woman expresses herself, that's sort of the whole point of feminism.

You seem to think that it's inherently obvious to everybody that somebody talking about female empowerment needs to be asexual? That isn't obvious to me. I am competitive, relatively intelligent, and I have a very strong libido. I'm also young and female. Working in adult media seems like a pretty good fit to me. Like I said before, I'm grateful to live in a time and a place where I have the power to make that decision for myself. I own my own company, I control my own image, I enforce my own policies, and I profit directly from my venture. That is empowerment. You telling me that I can't because it's not proper for a lady to express her sexuality, that's what's known as "repression".

Anyway, if you don't like what I do, fine, but don't bring it into this discussion. My web site has nothing to do with this topic, and I really do prefer to keep the shameless self promotion in my signature, not out in the open discussion. By mentioning it here you're just sending more people to my web site, which I'm sure is not what you want to be doing.

-Keslin, the naked nerd girl.

[ Parent ]

your signature isn't part of your post? (none / 0) (#71)
by gibichung on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 08:13:00 PM EST

Do you really think that Susie Bright isn't a feminist because she has made her career in the sex industry?

Though I admit I don't know much about her, my initial impression is that she's someone who promoted herself by trying shock and disgust people, while using feminism as a justification. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

It isn't for a man to decide how a woman expresses herself, that's sort of the whole point of feminism.

Expresses herself? We're using a pretty broad definition of expression here. Why don't you be more specific? While it's true that expression comes in many forms, in my opinion, if you really want to say something, the medium is as important as the message.

I'm grateful to live in a time and a place where I have the power to make that decision for myself. I own my own company, I control my own image, I enforce my own policies, and I profit directly from my venture. That is empowerment. You telling me that I can't because it's not proper for a lady to express her sexuality, that's what's known as "repression".

I didn't suggest that you shouldn't be allowed to do... what you do, only that you shouldn't demand that other people respect it, or ignore it when it relates to the discussion.

Anyway, if you don't like what I do, fine, but don't bring it into this discussion. My web site has nothing to do with this topic, and I really do prefer to keep the shameless self promotion in my signature, not out in the open discussion.

Yes, it is shameless. And k5 is not the place to be advertising a site of that nature. You wouldn't be allowed to advertise it in a real-world equilivent. You shouldn't pretend that your signature isn't part of your post, especially when it directly relates to what you're posting about. I guess your idea of feminism says that it's ok to advertise porn to minors, right?

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

Female sexuality is bad, m'kay? (3.50 / 2) (#73)
by Keslin on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 08:49:00 PM EST

my initial impression is that she's someone who promoted herself by trying shock and disgust people, while using feminism as a justification.
Well, your initial impression says a lot about your world view. A woman that asserts her sexuality is evil, dirty, and simply seeking shock value. Women aren't capable of enjoying sex and sexuality on their own, they need men to tell them how to do it. See, the reason why we are butting heads is exactly because of that world view.
Expresses herself? We're using a pretty broad definition of expression here. Why don't you be more specific? While it's true that expression comes in many forms, in my opinion, if you really want to say something, the medium is as important as the message.
Well yes, I have selected my medium quite intentionally. I'm interested in sexuality issues. I express my sexuality. This isn't a difficult deductive leap. Why should I conceal my true interests because a man sees female sexuality as an attempt to "shock and disgust people"?
I guess your idea of feminism says that it's ok to advertise porn to minors, right?
High horse. Off. Now. Do I really need to bring up the whole Goatse.cx thing? Do you really think that softcore porn is going to scar anybody if that man's ass didn't? There are a lot of links on K5 to a lot of things that are a lot more offensive than my boobs.

Anyway, I'm going to stop replying in this thread after this because it's pretty obvious even to me that I'm getting successfully trolled. We have managed to wander far enough off topic as to be disrespectful of the original story, and I'm not going to encourage that any further than this message.

-Keslin, the naked nerd girl.

[ Parent ]

the last word then..? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by gibichung on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 09:49:16 PM EST

Maybe this is a little off topic, but that happens in active discussions, anyway...

Well, your initial impression says a lot about your world view. A woman that asserts her sexuality is evil, dirty, and simply seeking shock value. Women aren't capable of enjoying sex and sexuality on their own, they need men to tell them how to do it. See, the reason why we are butting heads is exactly because of that world view.

You're using feminism in the same way that she does... as a cop-out. It should be obvious even to an enlightened liberal such as yourself that shameless self promotion in the name of feminism is abuse of its ideals. But you have a lot of personal stake in your own interpretation of feminism, so I understand why you're not interested in discussing this. It's you who doesn't seem to grasp that feminism shouldn't be an excuse for "anything goes" public sexuality. People can do anything they want in private, but they should be prepared to defend what they offer for public consumption. You have a right to your own sexuality, but advertising naked pictures of yourself is not "expressing your sexuality." Pornography is not protected speech, especially when directed at an audience that has many under-age members.

Well yes, I have selected my medium quite intentionally. I'm interested in sexuality issues. I express my sexuality. This isn't a difficult deductive leap. Why should I conceal my true interests because a man sees female sexuality as an attempt to "shock and disgust people"?

You're quoting me out of context. I did not reference "female sexuality," I was talking about: "On Our Backs--Entertainment for the Adventurous Lesbian." or "Good Vibrations." Everything she writes or says is clearly intended to be explicit and shock people. She isn't trying to promote "female sexuality," she's trying to promote herself.

High horse. Off. Now. Do I really need to bring up the whole Goatse.cx thing? Do you really think that softcore porn is going to scar anybody if that man's ass didn't? There are a lot of links on K5 to a lot of things that are a lot more offensive than my boobs.

So what? Because there are worse things out there, you can do anything you want? Why exactly do you advertise your site on k5, if staying on topic is so important?

Anyway, I'm going to stop replying in this thread after this because it's pretty obvious even to me that I'm getting successfully trolled. We have managed to wander far enough off topic as to be disrespectful of the original story, and I'm not going to encourage that any further than this message.

I'm not trolling. If you want to use that as an excuse to end this discussion so be it, but I always like to get in the last word anyway, so I'll try to recover some coherence:

Being a woman (or a feminist) is not an excuse to be a pornographer. There's nothing wrong with pornography, but you shouldn't expect to give it respectability in places it doesn't belong by bringing up feminism.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

Male or female, aggression is still bad (3.00 / 1) (#69)
by cyberformer on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 08:08:58 PM EST

Aggression isn't exclusively a male trait, but it is still a Bad Thing. And in general, males are still more aggressive than females. That's why most violent criminals are men.

[ Parent ]
Males -> Aggression -> Violence ? (4.00 / 1) (#75)
by swr on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 09:07:51 PM EST

And in general, males are still more aggressive than females. That's why most violent criminals are men.

Do you have any facts to back this up?

I can think of a number of other possible reasons for there being more violent male criminals than violent female criminals...

  • Upper body strength makes it easier for men to commit violence than women
  • Societal attitudes encouraging violence in men much more than in women
  • Other, less likely and/or less obvious possibilities

Then there is the question of why men are more aggressive than women. And whether men in general really are more agressive and/or violent than women, or does the statement only apply to men in certain cultures.

You have made a very sweeping statement about gender, agression, and violence. Do you have any facts, or are you just parroting what you have heard elsewhere?



[ Parent ]
yet females are the most violents of the two (none / 0) (#94)
by Quietti on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 05:09:57 AM EST

Please stop it with the old cliche! Females are as much, if not even more aggressive and violent than males. Just because a male typically comes with a stronger body does not make us men violent by design.

However, women tend to be the ones resorting to terminal physical violence whenever caught in a conflict with their spouse. Ever heard of the proverbial flying pan on the husband's head? It's definitely not a myth. Statistics (no, I don't have a link, but recall reading those stats several times both on and off the net) show that whenever a female feels even remotely threathened, she will instantly resort to "preventive" usage of terminal force against the typicaly male "adversary".

Also, women make regular and quasi-systematic use of verbal aggression towards male, often by directly attacking the male's dignity. Yet, should any male even as much as remotely comment on anything that might hurt a woman's feelings, there will most likely be a false sexual harrassment complain in retaliation. Again, the female's response to perceived aggression is excessively disproportionate to the agression itself.

Wake up now and smell the coffee: the old myth of nice girls and bad boys is long gone! (assuming it ever was true at all).



--
The whole point of civilization is to reduce how much the average person has to think. - Stef Murky
[ Parent ]
Why is aggresion bad? (5.00 / 3) (#101)
by Weedhopper on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 09:55:24 AM EST

Really. Why is aggression bad?

Aggression and aggresiveness in the right individuals is the only reason we're not still sitting in trees flinging dung at passing lions.

And what's this horse puckey about competition being bad? Overcompetitiveness when you should be cooperating to the detriment of the group, okay. That's bad. But whiny lily livered shit about "oh, us males are aggresive and competitive and that makes us bad..." drives me insane. Christ, grow a pair of balls, go out and play a sport or something.



[ Parent ]

Beauty and the feminist (none / 0) (#90)
by Skwirl on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 02:40:38 AM EST

>I am eternally grateful to feminists like my mother, as well as Western
>feminists that paved the way for me to be able to live my life as a strong and
>assertive woman.

You object to the idea that your sexuality is socially constructed, and yet you admit that under other circumstances, women were unfree to express certain socially unfavorable qualities. In other words, sexual traits can be socially suppressed but not socially constructed. I find this arguement slightly contradictory. Furthermore, I think that the fact that your mother was a strong woman and passed her strength on to you helps show that docility/aggression are social constructs.

Also, please don't go running around waving the banner of feminism. Like any philosophy, feminism is multi-faceted and contains many competing schools of thought. In fact, each of my points in the parent post were my interpretation of some piece of feminist ideology. However, I didn't go espousing the wonders of feminism because I knew it would alienate my audience. Abuse of the word "feminism" almost certainly has contributed to the anti-feminist backlash.

Yes, men and women are capable of the "male gaze", and I'm sure that as women become more "modern" we'll see more examples of vivisectioned male bodies in the media. Unfortunitely, our present media is more obsessed with sexualizing women's bodies and, to me, that seems unfair. (OT: The silhouette on your web page is a wonderful example of the male gaze phenomenon.)

So, you're a "competitive, sexually aggressive and vain" woman? That's great. More power to you. Does your success mean that all women are empowered by beauty and aggressive sexuality? I don't think so. The only reason you can afford to express these personality traits is because people find you attractive. Unattractive people have no such luxuaries. In fact, I'd guess that the empowerment you've gained has been at the expense of men who have unrealistic expectations about women and women who have unrealistic expectations about themselves. I mean, really, how many men are going to find a 5' 4"/32 D nerd girl to be with?

"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
[ Parent ]

So (3.75 / 4) (#58)
by trhurler on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 05:21:32 PM EST

You're embarassed that you like boobs, which embarassment is clearly a social construct, and yet you despise women who are aggressive and competitive, because you see this as a social construct.

Let me clue you in on something. Women lust after body parts too - some more and some less, just as with men. Women can be as aggressive and/or competitive as men - and some aren't, just like some men. This is life. It is not a social construct. It is not a myth or a theory or even all that interesting - it just is. If some woman tells you this isn't true, then unless she's either speaking from ignorance or purely of herself, she's lying.

Don't get me wrong; I certainly don't think physical characteristics are ever the most important thing about a person - but as long as you know that, why does it matter whether or not that girl(or guy) across the way has an ass you could use to mold salad bowls? It doesn't, so as long as you aren't embarassed, gawk all you like. Most people like to be admired, whether they admit it or not, for just about anything for which they can be admired. On the other hand, being obnoxious... well, is being obnoxious.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Patooie (none / 0) (#91)
by Skwirl on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 03:45:23 AM EST

Embarassed? Despise? Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
[ Parent ]
Not all men are like that (4.50 / 4) (#72)
by Orion Blastar on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 08:35:16 PM EST

I don't seem to have aggression, domination and greed. Maybe that is my main problem then? I'm not agressive enough, I'm not dominate enough, and I don't seem to have any greed. I'm that boy that was picked on a lot in grade school, junior high, and high school. I just didn't fit into any of the known groups, I never was popular, and I only fought when attacked I never started any fights on my own.

Rejected, humiliated, made fun of, never picked for any team sport, and never really had any real friends at all except for a few. Most of them killed themselves over the years because they also suffered from a form of depression that I suffer from. My best friend killed himself in 1999, nothing I could do about it to stop him.

But us men get stereotyped anyway, no matter how we really behave. I guess we must be at fault for the way the world is now. Now women can cut us out of the picture. Have a nation of all women. Surely women cannot also have aggression, domination and greed? Is it just a male trait? I think not, as I have seen many women also exhibit those traits. They make strip-clubs for women too, as well as their own porn, and other stuff. Maybe women deny those traits, but some of them still have them. A friend of mine was abused by his live-in girlfriend, being a pacifist he didn't fight back. But the Police could not believe that a woman could do that much damage to a man, so they refused to do anything. He had to leave and go into hiding, least she find him and take all his money away from him again and beat him up black and blue again. Dragon Ladys do exist, my friends. The females do have their darker sides as well as the males.
*** Anonymized by intolerant editors at K5 and also IWETHEY who are biased against the mentally ill ***
[ Parent ]

Agression, greed, etc., not bad (none / 0) (#111)
by weirdling on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 08:42:34 PM EST

Actually, much of the modern world is a direct result of aggression and greed. The capitalistic system is driven by it, and without it, very few new things would happen.
That being said, I guess I'm somewhat of a maveric, because those women I do ogle certainly aren't what normal people consider beautiful, and I won't even conduct a conversation with a woman unless she demonstrates posession of a brain and some knowledge of how to use it.
Oh, and yeah, I also sew, cook, and clean. My current girlfriend is rather feministic, and I prefer that in a way, so long as she doesn't start male-bashing, at which point I try not to descend too deeply into female bashing. Radical feminists do piss me off, and I am male and do relish my agression and greed, and see no reason not to, and feminism certainly hasn't provided a reason other than its automatic assumption that women are superior, which is worthless in a pragmatic argument.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
Another viewpoint: this could be cool. (4.00 / 4) (#66)
by Kasreyn on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 07:29:29 PM EST

Think of it. This is another way to reduce childbirth rates in the world! "Get your tubes tied, men! You can always have kids later."

This would be cool, and if I knew the procedure was highly successful, and was available to me (and would remain available to me!), I'd probably get a vasectomy so I could have sex without worrying about unintended impregnations. This obviously won't help any with STD's. But between partners who know each other are clean, it would obviate the need of contraceptives.

Of course, there is the dark side to all this of course. But there's a dark side to every technological advance. If it's put in the hands of capable and ethical people the good side of it will have effect, and if it's put in the hands of greedy and evil people, we'll see the dark side of it more.

However, any male fears being espoused here on K5 are just plain silly. A new scientific treatment that eliminates the male gametes (orgasm, too) as neccessary to reproduction will not change the world overnight, or even in our lifetimes. Male dominance is still too deeply rooted. Of course, when it finally does begin to equalize, if we still have the same kind of militant feminist pressure, they'll probably try to set up a female dominant world. Which would actually be more viable and stable, but no less demeaning to men.

There was an SF story I read once long ago, I can't even remember the title of it. It's about a future where the combination of 100% successful and easy brain engram-transfer and force-grown cloning (mindless clones of course) had grown to such a level of advancement, that one could have a full-body change into what you would have been, had you been born as the opposite gender! (and change back at will) A really deeply interesting story. The protagonist, Cleo (a woman), has this full-body sex change to experiment with being a male. She changes her name to Leo. Much of the remainder of the plot is taken up dealing with how her husband and children react to this grown male who houses the mind of their mother or wife. At first they are afraid, uneasy, and untrusting. Soon enough they learn she's still the same woman they love, and they accept her. It's a highly optimistic story about our ability to learn to love each other despite superficial differences. Personally, this story gives me hope that one day, if this technology could ever be achieved, the gender gap might be healed and we'd have true equality of the sexes.


-Kasreyn

P.S. I believe that story was in one of the "Best Sci Fi of (yearnumber)" anthologies, though I can't remember which one! I'll look it up sometime, but if anyone can remind me before then I appreciate it.
"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Female - Female reproduction in Science Fiction (4.00 / 1) (#74)
by nekonoir on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 08:52:56 PM EST

David Brin has an interesting novel on a genetically engineered matriarchal culture. AFAIR it's called 'Glory Season'. (Nowhere near my Book Deposit^W^WLibrary ATM)

Basic thesis is that women reproduce asexually the majority of the time and that men (who are mostly excluded from society) occasionally inject genetic variation into the population.

Very interesting Gedankenexperiment and (if you enjoy Brin's style) an enjoyable read.
Highly recommended

[ Parent ]
more sci-fi, and self-important nattering (none / 0) (#93)
by kazeus on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 05:03:14 AM EST

The story you mentioned also reminds me of Steel Beach, by John Varley. Similar concept, but body-switching is cheap, easy, and commonly accepted by everyone. It's good summer reading, but doesn't go very deep into the gender issues involved. However, I have a feeling that if sex changes were ever to become quick, painless, and complete, we might see more gender discrimination, rather than less, at least in some fields... after all, if she really wanted to join the military/police force/whatever, she'd just become a man, right?

__
Why should we plant when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?
[ Parent ]
Another one (none / 0) (#110)
by weirdling on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 08:36:24 PM EST

Whipping Star, by Frank Herbert (?), a very dark book in which people can transfer themselves into beings grown on a planet isolated for that purpose. Entertaining read...

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
Competition (3.00 / 1) (#86)
by Kaki Nix Sain on Thu Jul 12, 2001 at 12:36:08 AM EST

Seems to me that needing a medical laboratory to reproduce is a liability. To put it bluntly, fucking is cheap, easy, fun, and quite portable. No matter where males and females go in the universe, there it is. An easy supply of more of us. No testtubes, gene medicine, sanitary conditions, or fire needed.

If some group of fems want to use this to compete darwinstyle with us sexually reproducing portion of the species, I say we have them at a disadvantage.

Oh, and some genes from the male are used in developmental stuff. There remain bugs in this stratagy. So, it's not as time tested and true either.



Males are redundant | 114 comments (109 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!