Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Men's Place

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted November 29, 2005.


Norwegian scientists have discovered that male-dominated societies are doomed to extinction. What does this mean for feminism?
Advertisement

Scientists in Norway have discovered that male-dominated societies are doomed to extinction.

The way it happened was that somewhere at a university in Oslo, a bunch of researchers decided to perform a rather mean experiment on a bunch of lizards. They created a group of lizards whose population was three-quarters male, then another that was three-quarters female, and compared the behavior of both to a control group with gender balance.

It turns out that when male lizards are in the majority, female lizards die younger, have fewer babies, and receive two to three times as many wounds from male lizards during the mating process. Over time, the population skews more and more male and shrinks precipitously. Eventually, the researchers speculate, a male-dominated lizard group would simply die out. They call this process an "extinction vortex." Female-dominated lizard groups, on the other hand, are models of happy cooperation, growing larger and flourishing over time.

Somehow this made me think of Maureen Dowd and her new book, Are Men Necessary?. One of Dowd's basic ideas is that men aren't necessary to the reproduction of the species because women don't depend on them for anything crucial like financial support (most women have jobs) or making babies (that's what sperm banks are for).

In addition, Dowd says, men aren't interested in high-powered career women like her anyway. "I think it's turned out that men … oftentimes would rather be with a woman who is in awe of them," she said on CNN during an interview.

Looked at from this perspective, homo sapiens is doomed. The more powerful women become, the less they'll want to have sex with men -- and the less men will want to have sex with them.

What would our friends the lizards think about Dowd's scenario of a looming and dangerous indifference of the human sexes toward one another? Will female dominance among homo sapiens cause an extinction vortex? Or will female-dominated humans thrive, just like the female-dominated lizards did?

Personally, I think we should conduct a series of experiments on humans to discover the answer. Instead of making women dominant in terms of population size -- the way the Norwegian scientists did with their lizards -- let's make women dominant by altering their biology. I'd like to see a band of radical biopunk feminists emerge who take Dowd's ideas one step further. Instead of saying that women have the same earning power as men and are therefore equal to them, why not build a new generation of women who are physically as big and strong as men?

Let's take genetic engineering into our own hands and eliminate the last of the differences between the sexes! OK, we'll keep the fun, "ice cream" differences that feel nice on warm nights. But with a little gene doping, we could have women whose upper-body strength is equal to men's and who run just as fast. We could manipulate women's hormones so that they only get their periods when they want. Same goes for getting pregnant. Suddenly, it would start to seem stupid that men and women don't compete against each other in sports events. And there would be absolutely no good reason to keep women out of infantry duty in the army.

In truth, I think this is a great idea. What, exactly, would happen to sexism in a society where women could kick men's asses as often as men could kick women's?

What I'm afraid of is that precisely nothing would happen. There would be a lot of outraged editorials about how unnatural it all was. Then people would get used to it and go back to watching our male president -- who happens to be a lot smaller and less physically coordinated than many women -- tell his largely male staff and the largely male Congress that we're going to continue our war with another male-dominated society.

I think biology is largely irrelevant when it comes to the battle of the sexes. Even if women don't need men to reproduce and bring them food anymore, men still dominate because they hold so much more political and social power than we do.

That's why sometimes, when you're a feminist, it sucks not to be a lizard. At least lizards know why it's a bad idea to leave the men in charge.

Digg!

Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd who can't wait for the feminist biopunk revolution.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Who, me?
Posted by: milesd on Nov 29, 2005 3:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting speculation, Annalee. FYI, though, while "some men" may be in charge, "the men" most certainly aren't. Please don't lump us ineffectual wageslaves in with the sociopaths (we generally don't kick anyone's asses).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who, me? Posted by: feduphoosier
» RE: Who, me? Posted by: Lizka
» another alternative is available Posted by: vespasian01
Men don't have it so great, either
Posted by: ScottP on Nov 29, 2005 3:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take a look at the men in our "home of the brave". Most are so insecure that they'll vote for posers like Reagan and W and Arnold. They're so lost and hopeless that they'll just vote for an illusion, and kid themselves about how it's important to be tough and strong (since they don't want to risk trying to be wise and risk losing stature by failing). So they'll go ahead and vote their job to China, and then just to make sure that they've really sealed everyone's fate as a bunch of losers, they'll head down to Walmart and spend their last few bucks on cheap imported plastic garbage.

But their weakness is not just emotional, it's physical as well. I'm a middle aged weekend athlete who is as light as most women (135 lbs), and not only is it obvious that most of my contemporaries are too timid to come out and play sports any more, they're also so weak and unskilled that they'd be lousy anyhow.

The men have definitely screwed things up (again). But is Hillary really the war witch she seems to be, or is that just posturing she feels is necessary to avoid being attacked?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's with surly Shirley?
Posted by: lamar on Nov 29, 2005 3:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm all for a society of 75% females and 25% males. Heck, I'd even settle for a dive bar with a 50/50 ratio. I'm sick of getting hopped up on Jack and Coke just to have the nerve to act like a jackass and get her attention. And when I'm that hopped up, it's too late, dear. My only fear of Annalee's biopunk suggestion is that once females are equal in brawn, they might also become equal in jackassery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Genocide: Fun for all!
Posted by: Byrodude on Nov 29, 2005 3:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hear wiping out entire species is a great pasttime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Genocide: Fun for all! Posted by: Byrodude
People are lizards
Posted by: driver8 on Nov 29, 2005 3:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Same thing. 75% male population same thing would happen. About that Macho woman thing... what's that about. What would happen then is the complete breakdown of any ESTABLISHED gender roles that are left. Are gender roles sexist or do they stem simply from men and women being different. If girls could kick my ass they would. Cause they are mean and they can't have me. Also if girls could kick ass like guys they would NEVER shut up.Umm reproduction is on the decline among educated humans- and err that probably has to do with thinking too much, oh and talking too much. So that's my totally scientific opinion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: People are lizards Posted by: nickptar
not quite far enough...
Posted by: Nozone on Nov 29, 2005 4:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your speculation is interesting, but fatally flawed, I think: changing only women does absolutely nothing to increase the level of understanding or compassion necessary to really do away with sexism. All you'd really end up with if women could "kick men's asses as often as men could kick women's" is, well, more ass-kicking. That's all we need; more violence.

I think a better solution would be to broaden the basic human experience of sex & gender.

As long as we're fantasizing about biopunk machinations, why don't we get really radical and engineer the human genome so that all children are born unsexed (no obvious male or female body bits), but with the onset of puberty, their bodies (and brains/minds) gradually fluctuate between male & female before ultimately settling on one, so that by adulthood, everyone has had a few years of concrete experience of life as either sex?

From there, we could certainly go farther—what about being able change sex at-will, on a daily basis? what about having to change sex on a daily basis?—but Ifear I've gotten too Star-Trekkie already...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: not quite far enough... Posted by: mr. joshua
didnt a higher percentage of women vote for George W
Posted by: may261989 on Nov 29, 2005 5:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hate to spoil the party but arent women among George W's most fervent supporters??

p.s. also , two words to rebuke the "it would be a much better world if women ruled" argument : Margaret Thatcher.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» two more words Posted by: taxidave
» Two additional words Posted by: Patrice126
» THREE words! I win! Posted by: bettsoff
Well ok, but ...
Posted by: kmeyer on Nov 30, 2005 12:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This study is ridiculous. As usual, I enjoy your wit Annalee, but please. Many many species, including many lizards, have disproportionate gender differentials to begin with. Which lizards did they experiment with, and what were their original conditions?
All this not to even mention the chaos factor when introducing an animal into an environment significantly altered.
I like your ideas. Just use better analogies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sounds good...
Posted by: I_Love_NY on Nov 30, 2005 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know about the science and I don't care. It would do this world good if there were like 3 or 4 females per every one male. Is that so hard to see that you need a study?

Making conservatives cringe since 1977

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sounds good... Posted by: NYRugby
Now we're reminded what war is REALLY for.
Posted by: just john on Nov 30, 2005 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
War is there to trim down the male population, especially the more aggressive young males.

And the survivors get to have harems!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Male-dominated LIZARD societies...
Posted by: drSooz on Nov 30, 2005 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is but another example of how studies on animals produce flawed, or non-transferable-to-humans, conclusions. Male-dominated LIZARD societies may be doomed to extinction, but until and unless longitudinal studies on male-dominated HUMAN societies are done, the results are inconclusive at best and inaccurate at worst. I believe our gender-related traits are just that: gender-related, and all the bioengineering in the world will just produce more screwed up people - and we already have enough of them. And yes, as another comment already noted, we don't need any more ass-kicking. :-(

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» They're LIZARDS, for krissake ... Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» Matriarchal Mammals ... Posted by: AdamSelene11726
Chicken-hawks rule
Posted by: rabblerowzer on Nov 30, 2005 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
>War is there to trim down the male population, especially the more aggressive young males.<

Middle-aged and older men instigate wars primarily for profit. The elimination of aggressive young males is just the whipped-cream topping. Evil old chicken-hawks like Cheney reap the profits and perpetuate their breeding opportunities.

The race goes not to the aggressive, swift or strong but to those utterly devoid of scruples.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Chicken-hawks rule Posted by: Lincoln fan
"No...It Can't Be. . ."
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 30, 2005 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you saying that testicles are obsolete vesicles?! Oh, please, say it ain't so, say it ain't so!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "No...It Can't Be. . ." Posted by: Lincoln fan
"No...It Can't Be, Pt. II"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 30, 2005 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's interesting that those scientists picked lizards for their experiment. Were they perhaps thinking of our congress when they chose reptiles as their sample group?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "No...It Can't Be, Pt. II" Posted by: aonghus36
Chris (a female, BTW)
Posted by: bumpy on Nov 30, 2005 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our men are emasculated enough already! We can't have women taking away EVERY single bit of maleness from men. Our problem is not that women and men are not equals, our problem is that the roles men and women play have been dramatically shifted in the last 100 years. Our biology and centuries of culture cannot reconcile with the way we've altered our expectations of men and women today. Strong men are a good thing! We don't have ENOUGH strong men in our society! We have a bunch of p*ssies cow towing to other men, yes-men, liars, thieves, etc. We need strong, honest, sincere, capable men, men who will hold other men accountable. We don't need to put women in men's place.

The question we need to ask is why are our men so easily pushed into bad things today? Sadly--though I am 100% in support of women's rights--it seems that empowering women ALLOWED men to slip. Whereas in the past a man simply had to support his family and maintain his honor or suffer the consequences of shame, alienation, etc., today none of this is necessary (because his woman will do it for him). We all know men are lazy by nature, and we women have allowed them to become lazy, careless, and apathetic. This is where the problem lies. And now we're so far into the game that nothing aside from a sea change in society (ie, turning us all into Amazon women warriors) will fix things.

The answer is not making women like men, the answer is looking hard at how men are raised, or "trained" to be men. It is a sobering fact that 25 million boys today in the US do not live with their bio fathers. And it's getting worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Chris (a female, BTW) Posted by: bumpy
» RE: Chris (a female, BTW) Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Chris (a female, BTW) Posted by: badassmonkeykid
» RE: Chris (a female, BTW) Posted by: kmaripo
» RE: Chris (a female, BTW) Posted by: Lizka
*sigh* I'm evil...
Posted by: Webimpulse on Nov 30, 2005 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I want to be a feminist and fight for women's rights just as much as any women would. I'm of the mind that "feminism is the radical notion that women are people" (yeah, it's off a bumper sticker, but I still believe it). But, if the undertones of Annalee's column are to be believed, there is one factor that would make me fighting for feminism and women's rights an impossibility - the fact that I'm male.

Apparently, it's just not bad enough that the males that currently dominate our society are the ones setting the standards that most males in our society find impossible to live up to. From these powerful males, us average males are expected to be inhumanly tough, both physically and emotionally. To earn the approval of such powerful males, the rest of us can't show any sign of weakness or sensitivity; we can't show the emotions that indicate that we suffer; we have to constantly put forth the guise of toughness and belligerence so that we can be "manly" and be successful males in our society. No, it's not bad enough that us average males have these standards of being a successful male that crush most of us. We need to have females telling us that our mere existence as males makes us evil, a liability to feminism and the human race as a whole. That our worst excesses are fundamentally coded into our genes and as such our male sexual organs are a plague on the biosphere.

Look, I didn't ask to be born a male. God or whoever flipped my coin and it landed Male, and I just happened to come out of my mother's uterus with male genitals attached to my crotch. This has convinced me God is evil. I want to punch God out, like Hartigan wanted to in the Sin City comic, for making me born the Evil(TM) gender. But guess what, I'm stuck with it. As much as I'd want a sex-change operation, I simply don't have the money to spare, nor will I come up with it in the foreseeable future.

So does this mean the only way for me to contribute to the fight against the oppression of women is to cut it off (you should know what I'm talking about here) and bleed to death in pain and agony? I can think of less painful ways to off myself, but they wouldn't do the wrongs I have committed against humanity and the planet - again, because of my being born male - any justice. I'm too much of a wuss to do any of the above anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: *sigh* I'm evil... Posted by: englehart
» RE: *sigh* I'm evil... Posted by: Webimpulse
» RE: *sigh* I'm evil... Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: *sigh* I'm evil... Posted by: Lizka
» RE: *sigh* I'm evil... Posted by: Lizka
I'm tired of apologizing for who I am
Posted by: Sigil on Nov 30, 2005 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not a woman, but neither am I a small, efete vegetarian weaking male-- I'm a freak of nature; a 6 foot-seven inch 350-pound behemoth of a person. I can reach the high shelves and lift unusally heavy objects. People look up to me, literally. I go into a socially challenging situation and there are people who are cowed simply because they are afraid of what I could do if I got upset. Because, obviously, somebody like me, big, strong, male-- must be aggressive and dangerous.

But here's the secret: I'm actually a very nice person! I consisder myself a feminist, and agree that the typical alpha-male aggression is the cause of a lot of problems in the world.

But, does that give everyone who has a politically convenient body configuration license to judge me as part of those problems? I'm sick of being assumed to be that person. It's ironic, I think, that it's so often I see a hasty evaluation in the eyes of empowered women like Annalee before they have a chance to discover that in fact, I actually agree with a lot of their point of view. Further, this sort of feminine chauvenism seems to be just fine with most people. The question "Are men necessary?" and the like are looked on as a cheeky, flirty way of seizing power from the patriarchy-- when all they are really doing is making it much more difficult for people like me to be who we know we want to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An answer to war
Posted by: jwg on Nov 30, 2005 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the only problem to solve was one of male agression, I would think that if there was just more sex between the two races, less procreation, there would be less war. Wasn't it the Trojan women who cut off the men to make them fight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An answer to war Posted by: Sigil
Chasing the wrong villain
Posted by: kmaripo on Nov 30, 2005 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a feminist but I sure wouldn't want to live in a world without men. It's not the males that need to go the way of the dodo and the dinosaur - it's the patriarchal paradigm that keeps both sexes oppressed, albeit in different ways. Given the opportunity to live in a culture that values men and women equally, the idea of gender roles takes on a whole new meaning, one that isn't necessarily confined to one's sex. Of course, eliminating patriarchy after thousands of years of male domination is no small task and will, without a doubt, require the permanent removal of the type of men who wield power unscrupulously in the world today. Still...it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bath water. Replacing men with some horrific version of amazonian power mavens doesn't serve either sex or the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Radical Woman
Posted by: ktsmom9 on Nov 30, 2005 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I dare to speak out in this forum, wondering how I'll be received. I think men are marvelous! I think this essay by Annalee is a twisted, miserable result of our social experiment of "feminatzi-ism"

Men are actually wonderful, spiritual, kind and gentle, loving beings. Or at least, they CAN be. I know, because I'm married to one. I'm grateful to have his muscles around when I need big things hauled about (yes, and a bit jealous too), and equally grateful for his loving arms, and the beautiful daughter with whom he gifted me, using his gender-specific equipment.

His mind works very differently from mine. Brain studies by Scientists have shown that men's brains are wired very differently from women's, and I have seen the proof of this every day for almost 15 years. His interests are definately "guy". He loves to watch football, play chess and other strategy games, and has a strong attraction to my gender-specific equipment. ;o)

Aside from all this, believe it or not, men are just as capable of being creatures of Virtue as are women. If you don't believe me, check out this website, and study up on it: http://www.bic-un.bahai.org/93-0405.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: adical Woman Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: adical Woman Posted by: Lincoln fan
i gotta disagree with maureen dowd here...
Posted by: josh42042 on Nov 30, 2005 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
maybe i'm an exception (as a man) but i'd much rather be with a smart powerful woman than some chick who thinks i'm a genius because i've read an ENTIRE book.

but yeah, a matriarchy would be a lot better than what we have now. i, for one, welcome our new female overlords.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terrific
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Nov 30, 2005 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article. I am going to include flies in my diet come spring.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As long as we're doing the radical biopunk thing...
Posted by: medstudgeek on Nov 30, 2005 11:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about bioengineering legions of nerd women? Once women start swooning over us shy geeky sorts, men will start hacking computers instead of beating each other up and trying to amass power in order to impress the opposite sex. No more wars, just open source software.

Besides, Annalee, from your past posts I understand you're gay or bi and poly. You wouldn't like nice nerdettes to love and cherish?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nerd girls! Posted by: bettsoff
It's everyone's fault but mine
Posted by: Texocrat on Nov 30, 2005 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure how seriously I should take this article. I think it may be better suited for "The Onion." Surely those researchers in Norway did more than prove the obvious, but you wouldn't know it from reading this. All I see is a bitter woman looking to back up her man bashing with incoherent "facts."

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the empowerment of women. I'm tired of changing tires, giving advice on all things mechanical, and making all the damn decisions. I think women should be more assertive and independant. Too many (not all, I know) are raised to depend on men to do things for them, which creates a confidence void. That needs to stop. Upbringing is the primary place where gender issues need to be addressed. It's just like racism and homophobia. People get stuck in their ways, and while we may change some, we'll just have to wait for most of them to die. It's sad, but I think that's what it's going to take.

If you're serious about fixing these problems, bashing men is not going to help. That's just as bad as men who don't believe women are capable. In high school (& college), I was that smart, nice, quiet guy who couldn't get a date, because all the women were chasing after the macho dumb jocks, mistaking arrogance for strength. I have little sympathy for those women. I'm a firm believer in evolution. That means women are half the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women and the "Bad Boys"
Posted by: aonghus36 on Nov 30, 2005 4:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am all for the equality of the genders. I am all for a woman president, but think we should have more choices than Hillary and Condi. I get the feeling that these two choices are being given to us ahead of time. As for the idea of women wanting a world where cooperation is preferred over competition, I think that is theory only. The reason is that most women I know prefer the "bad boys" to the "nice guys". Is it just my karma? Maybe, but in the last election George W. Bush, a bad boy, sure got a lot of votes from women, instead of John Kerry, a nice guy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Women and the "Bad Boys" Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Women and the "Bad Boys" Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Women and the "Bad Boys" Posted by: Texocrat
» RE: Women and the "Bad Boys" Posted by: aonghus36
Women proven inefficient
Posted by: lamar on Dec 1, 2005 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have found an article that proves women are inefficient, and therefore unfit to do whatever it is Annalee thinks they should be doing. Apparently, text messages from women to other women average 80 characters, whereas men to text other men average 60 characters. When the sexes interact, they generally come in between. Therefore, women only make men inefficient, and despite the heroic efforts of men, women are inefficient. Moreover, men use more foul language, which casts them as "rebels" and makes them more desirable, whereas women tend to be more "conversational" which scares the hell out of men. If women could kick men's asses, then our text message lengths would most certainly go out of control. Then the whole world would be screwed.....

Article on gender based text messaging

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Underwhelming at best. Posted by: esactun
» Mea culpa. Posted by: esactun
Mommy, where do sperm banks come from?
Posted by: Leverkuhn on Dec 1, 2005 9:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Analee thinks women don't need men to reproduce because there are sperm banks...that's some real solid reasoning there! With logic like that, you could be an advisor for Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Forget lizards, think frogs
Posted by: Rune on Dec 2, 2005 3:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Annalee sounds like quite a frog farmer to me!
For context, see http://www.celebratingmen.com and scroll down to the bottom for the "Are You A Frog Farmer?" link.


Let's see:
* Do men keep their distance instead of seeking emotional intimacy?

Who could blame 'em?

* Do you feel ignored instead of adored?

It shows!

* Do you feel taken from instead of given to by men?

That's the basic complaint, isn't it?

* Are men defensive with you instead of open?

Seems perfectly reasonable in light of commentaries that portray men as a problem rather than a large set of people with an array of strengths and weaknesses.

* Do you experience being objectified instead of cherished?

Gee, why might that be?

* Have you been told you intimidate men?

Oh, look, Maureen Dowd's a frog farmer, too!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wow. Posted by: bettsoff
» Uh ... do you 'get much?" Posted by: AdamSelene11726
yes, but ....
Posted by: jambro on Dec 2, 2005 3:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why? nature evolves whatever we do to try and tweak our environments of bodies. however much you may fantisise either scenario — masculine females or status quo, gender & sex are complex socio-biological phenomena, much more so than the present tip of the iceberg might indicate, as science is not really that far along in understanding it all.

A wonderful recent novel explores just such an equation of a male population explosion, Amin Maalouf's "The Year After Beatrice" ... check it out & get back to us on it ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» two more books Posted by: liberalibrarian
Now that makes sense
Posted by: brandonfullerton on Aug 13, 2006 5:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me get this straight; some weird scientists in Norway found out that if you stick a bunch of male animals in a cage, they fight more! Who would have thought!
Also, it doesn't make sense for women to become more masculine themselves if men are the source of all of the problems in the world, does it?
This article is evident of society as a whole being threatened more and more by masculinity. I think that it is funny that Homo Sapiens have been around nearly 100,000 years or so; presumably, mostly male dominated (in power not population)and have done just fine surviving. It should also be noted that the author confuses percentage of population in the lizards and the power distribution in ours.
The only comparable situation that exists in our modern world is that of China; where female babies are being killed or aborted in favor of males. In this scenario, there is indeed a crime problem with males that have nothing to take up their time (women).
I just hope that this flawed article loosely based on questionable "evidence" doesn't change anybody's mind. I thought that the practice of making up evidence to cover up obvious distortions of reality was the sole bastion of religion! The ignorant and biased will always find a home no matter what their zealotous fervor is about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]