"the world will never know"...

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Tnerb, Jun 10, 2008.

  1. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    The world will never know.

    Refering to that famous line "The world may never know"; used by the how many licks does it take to get to the center of a lollypop- or something like this.

    Seriously. The world may never know. Keep that in mind, as it is the most obvious rendation I can think of "it" at this moment.

    The world may never know if or not women is inferior to man. Or visa versa.
    I state this, because hit is a huge statement.

    I use the title, because it is a well recognized statement.
    The world may never know.
    Easy right?
    The world will never know.
    Easier, right?

    Anyway. The world will never know. The only way the world will ever know if a woman is superior to a man, is to not simply deconstruct or look to previous theories (possibly) to find some of the answers (deconstruct man into a womans image). Because even then at highest levels you are still stuck with what is called "superiority possibility" as I word it here.
    Sure. I admit it. I have been into this shibbiggle for a good while now. I hate it as much as a preach it, so stick with me.

    Will the world ever know who is superior?
    What are your opinions as to who are superior or not, and why? Feel free to discuss please. I wouldn't mind sharing some of mine.

    We are all well aware that a woman doesn't have the strength that a man does.
    But does this matter?

    We are all well aware that a man doesn't have the softness that a woman does. But does this matter?

    What considers "superiority"???
    Is my biggest question to this thread.
    What would you consider as superior.

    The world will never know.
    It's not like you need to go buy lollipops now, suckers.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    Actually, not to be the owl of that same commercial...one, twhhoooo... but...

    Envisioning a World Without Men
    Scientist Says Female-Only Reproduction Is Only a Few Years Away
    By NICK WATT
    LONDON, April 28, 2008—


    Imagine a world without men: Lauren Bacall but no Bogie, Hillary Clinton but no Bill, no Starsky or Hutch.

    This isn't just an unlikely sci-fi scenario. This could be reality, according to Bryan Sykes, an eminent professor of genetics at Oxford University and author of "Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men."

    "The Y chromosome is deteriorating and will, in my belief, disappear," Sykes told me. A world-renowned authority on genetic material, Sykes is called upon to investigate DNA evidence from crime scenes. His team of researchers is currently compiling a DNA family tree for our species.


    Y Chromosome 'Fatally Flawed'
    The Y chromosome is passed from father to son, it's what makes babies into boys. Basically the human template is a female: the Y chromosome kicks in a few weeks after conception and makes a boy. "Men are genetically modified women," explained Sykes. But unlike other chromosomes, the Y chromosome can't repair itself and will, says Sykes, disappear altogether in about 125,000 years.

    "Every generation one percent of men will have a mutation which reduces their fertility by 10 percent," explained Sykes. Unlike most chromosomes, the Y does not travel through the generation in pairs, so can never repair itself from a mirror. Flaws are never repaired. "So if that goes on for generation after generation," Sykes argued, "eventually there are no functioning Y chromosomes left."

    So no more men & sparsely populated sports bars, Ferrari would lose the lion's share of its business, and Hooters would probably go out of business.

    It's a long time, 125,000 years. But we men have a far more immediate problem: sperm counts have fallen by an incredible 20 percent in the past 50 years. Stress? Alcohol? Environmental pollution? Who knows, but it's deeply concerning for those of us with a vested interest in the survival of the male.

    Sykes has received hate mail. "To seem to be saying that men will become extinct, which is what I am saying," he mused. "I've had all kinds of messages from male groups saying, 'how can you betray your gender?'"

    But would the absence of men make the world a better place? There would be far fewer wars without men on the planet, and the U.S. prison population would drop a colossal 97 percent. Road deaths in the U.S. would fall 70 percent. The Olympics would be half as long, which some people might view as a good thing.


    Female-Only Reproduction
    But surely, flawed Y chromosome or not, bad behavior or not, we are needed for procreation. Women can't have babies without us & right? I'm afraid, pretty soon they won't need our sperm, our chromosomes, our anything.

    Until now, female-only reproduction has been limited to the plant and animal kingdom. So-called parthenogenesis, observed in the Cape Honey Bee, the Kimono Dragon and the hammerhead shark. In humans: confined to 1950s B movies. But Sykes says the technology for women to procreate without us is just around the corner.

    "Within the next few years you will get two women having a child who is the biological child of both of them," Sykes said. "And entirely normal in every respect, but always female."


    They've already done it with mice. Two mothers: the genetic material from one used to fertilize the egg of the other.


    Two Mommies
    The picture that Professor Sykes is painting is of a nuclear family without a man in sight. We went in search of what could be the template for the survival of our species. Laura and Natalie are a lovely couple who live in South London with their 13-month-old daughter Sanne. They agreed to let our all-male crew take a peek into their lives. Natalie actually gave birth to Sanne. The sperm came from an anonymous donor. She's raised by two moms.

    "That the child will be well balanced with just two moms: Well, that's been proven back in the 40s," explained Natalie, who is also a child psychologist. "It's the care giving and the relationship between the care-giver and the infant that is the important part."

    Laura, who right now is the bread winner, thinks any family will work as long as the child is, "getting the attention, the affection, the discipline." Looking at her very contented daughter, Laura told me, "She's obviously confident. She's very stable and secure. So I think so far we're doing okay."

    Laura attended both the dads' and the moms' prenatal classes. I asked Natalie if having Laura as the partner was better than having a man? "I had actually a couple of mothers saying, 'Well, at least Laura's a woman she will understand better.'" Natalie told me. "And I said, 'no.' & She was exactly the same as the dads!"

    Could Laura mount a defense? "I would like to think that I separate from the dads in that I'm not hooked on the ball games and things like that," she explained. And I must say, she was knee-deep in diaper changing and feeding time while we were hanging out.

    So judging by this family, two moms aren't necessarily better, but can be just as good. But surely they must need a burly man for some things? I offered to put up some shelves, or change some light bulbs. "Actually, Laura is very, very handy," Natalie told me, trying not to hurt my feelings.

    "My father's a mechanic, so there's nothing about a car that disturbs me," explained Laura. "I've also & I renovated a house. So, I'm really not concerned about that either."

    Maybe our only hope as men is that women decide to keep us alive for their own amusement. For the pop music, perhaps, or maybe the dancing. We can be good at that.


    So, clearly, women will eventually be the superior...and for the record, I am male.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Superior to what? :shrug: I mean we must have something to be superior to in order to be superior don't we? If all humans have weaknesses then there's actually no one that is really superior to anyone else due to whatever their weakness may be. If you mean countries then again all countries have weaknesses also in one way or another. The word I'd use is cooperation instead of superior because those who learn to work together can eventually be better about anything together.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Renrue Someone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    If it's all women, then obviously they'd have to resort to lesbianism. Thusly meaning Hooters will not go out of business.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Not to mention butch women may take to the stuff men used to occupy.
     
  8. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Face it. It's highly unlikely that there is ever going to be a woman world. What about a natural disaster or something? Men are good for more than 2 things.
     
  9. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Studies have consistently shown that fatherlessness is one of the main contributions to deliquency and other problems in children.

    Furthermore, the majority of human progress has been made by men. In fact, practically all progress stems from men. There are few notable women in the history of the world who have made a difference or contributed to any field notably. Their universal subjugation (willingly I might add) is also important to address.
     
  10. jessiej920 Shake them dice and roll 'em Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,678
    Hmmm...you know I've agreed with you on many things before BUT....

    Don't we have to consider WHY so much progress stems from men only? Don't we have to question, that if there is no notable difference between the brain power of a man and woman, that there is a reason that women's contributions to society have gone unnnoticed and unrecognized and also hindered by many institutions? By 'willing subjugation', do you mean that women continually allow themselves to be overpowered by men or that society allows the practice to continue through enforced hetero-patriarachal 'norms'?
     
  11. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Women have far less strength than a man does. You look at a man, you look at a creature who is created to do things. And do them damn good. A woman on the other hand, no matter who she is, can only try to do these things. It seems natural to me that this is a mans strength. I personally feel very comfortable being a man and see superiority in women as well as in men. I find that they are at a high level very adequate. Not perfect, but adequate. I haven't really grasped the whole idea of feminism, but I do have a pretty good understanding of it I believe.

    A woman is ... how to say it.. different in many areas.
    First, she ... well. I guess this is a good place to dump many different ideas about women and men. My question is who is superior. I've said it in the opening post. I haven't clarified it. But seriously, it is a decent enough question I believe.

    If I ask "who is superior? Man or woman?"
    I get a response, "Woman is superior."
    I ask, "Why?" yada yada yada, but no real good statements. There really are not any very good statements and I feel it is mostly this physical basis, this abstract physical basis that stems the correctness so to speak of this whole arguement.

    "What do you mean by 'superior'?"
    "Well, I mean, does a woman have equality with a male? If you ask yourself this question you no doubt are faced with it's reality. Moreover, the question will face your reality soon enough; and when you think of it, you won't be able to stop! More over, stopping or not stopping is irrelevant. You will consider this superiority / inferiority one way or another. It will cross your mind one way or another and you have no choice but to defeat it by the only means you know how. Defeating "it" however, is not defeating the idea, but only the belief of the idea."

    So there is superiority. So what? :bawl:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Jessiej920:

    It is notable that studies have shown brain differences between men and women, which makes it not a matter of power (IQ), but of specialization (men are more analytic). Consider: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/page/0,12983,937443,00.html It is also notable that autism has been described as an "extreme form of the male mind".

    As to the subjugation issue: The sort of coherent role of women in diverse societies and cultures makes sense only within a view which considers women's roles in these societies as natural. That is, stemming from the nature of the genders themselves. The motherhood/nurturing drive that compells women as a sex (if not individually in all cases) places them in a naturally submissive position. This is not to say that individually certain women are incapable of participating in male activities, but the natural inclination of the feminine gender is not towards those things on a whole. Accordingly, the social patriarchy system which you addressed briefly can only explain those situations in which a few of the "different from the majority" women were squelched, and cannot explain why women as a whole fit into their role without out right coercion. The sort of systematic effort from a patriarchy to keep women in place would be too much to be seen so universally. Same with the equally as fettered masculine roles, which are as universal, and as frowned upon in certain circumstances to move away from. That men are part and parcel of cultural progression, whereas women are nurturers, by all reckonings can be construed as a biological outgrowth as such.

    It is also important to place male-female differences in light of a complimentarian relationship. They work best when together, which is probably the reason that we have this "division of sexual empashsis" in society to begin with.
     
  13. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    It's a matter of biology. Women, as child bearers, were not only put of commission for 9 months for pregnancy, they also had to be the primary caregiver for their child. Men are also naturally on average stronger than women. In a hunter-gatherer society, which is where all societies came from, it's easy to see why men would end up playing a more dominant role and that role has for the most part survived, from the transition from hunter-gatherer to agricultural to industrial, and it's only in very recent history that women have been able to break free from their own historical role.

    I think it's safe to say that it would have been impossible for women to have come out as the more dominant gender when it comes to historical significance.

    Either way, there is no real answer to your OP as you provide zero context. Superior in what sense?
     
  14. jessiej920 Shake them dice and roll 'em Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,678
    Well....

    So a man's strength is his strength? The only way to be superior is by being physically stronger? I don't agree. I feel powerful in being a woman but it has nothing to do with feeling superior to a man. And still, just because you are a man 'biologically' does not technically mean you are physically stronger then every woman. Physical strength is not just handed out based on sex. There are plenty of average women who are physically stronger then average men. And are women not also created to do many things? Like I mentioned before, there is no difference between the brain power of a man and woman. So what equals superiority..strength or smarts? So then who is superior? Who the hell knows? Why does anyone have to be superior? We all have the need to dominate or be dominated at some point. We all have our individual strengths and weaknesses. We all have the need to objectify and be objectified and we all WANT to be superior at something. Doesn't that make us equal? Like you said...no one will ever know. Trying to defeat the idea of who is superior based on personal beliefs does nothing to eradicate the assumptions made by the mass majority on who is superior. If the majority says 'man is stonger' then women will spend forever trying to prove it wrong and the same would go vice versa. Men and women...how can you define superiority between the two when the idea of what equates a 'real' man and a 'real' woman is so socially constructed? Superiority is subjective. So what. :bawl:
     
  15. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,899
    Anybody else missing Malakas/Satyr?
     
  16. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    I had actually said:
    Women have far less strength than a man does.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    ... My point?

    You look at a man, you look at a creature who is created to do things.
    My point... helloooo!
    :confused

    And do them damn good. A woman on the other hand, no matter who she is, can only try to do these things.

    Ah- hah!
    Caught you and your little swirling around the fish tank ass!
    And do them damn good. A woman on the other hand, no matter who she is, can only try to do these things.

    You see my thought is actually at a high level while my typing is at either 1st or 12th... I can't figure out which!


    I never said that.

    I said a mans strength is that in the physical realm, speaking metaphysically, he is stronger. He has more gut. He has more "strength." Is actually what I had meant in that post of mine. Pardon me.

    A woman on the other hand, no matter who she is, can only try to do these things.

    We get the point already, enough with the tedious remarks!

    and see superiority in women as well as in men. I find that they are at a high level very adequate. Not perfect, but adequate.

    Here, I was being a little............................... rude towards the female gender. Discrediting their "strength" and their "fashion" even in their perfection (which according to one of my books "The Eternal Feminine, lures towards perfection" or something in one of Nietzsche's books (what a load of trash is in that book).



    Because even you, in your darkest cranny, will still hold a grudge. Not a grudge. A grudge that is an idea.

    You want to be dominated?

    If media said man was stronger; media would believe it.

    Yeah. Superority is subjective.

    And I just ate a fork.
     
  17. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Satyr eats my ass when it comes to feminine knowledge(/understanding?).
     
  18. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,899
    Women are superior in matters of emotional reasoning, intuition relating to child-rearing, multi-tasking, dexterity and speed in intricate manual tasks, verbal skills, perception of sublteties (colours, temperatures etc.)
    Men are superior in spatiality, rapid decision making, strength, ignoring extraneous information in crisis situations.

    We are actually complimentary. It's no secret.
     
  19. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Yes yes we are. And thus my title, little stud muffin while I pull my Satyr imitation (wait, I can do that, right?). Or, maybe, just maybe, I am Satyr, fish brains.

    The question is a simple one, true. Are women inferior to men or are men inferior to women. The question has a physical basis. Otherwise, there is really no basis whatsoever. If you take away the physical requirements, the metaphysical rather, requirements, you are taking away everything. Of course a man is inferior to a woman I think, but then, I think that a woman is inferior to a man. Then I think "why". Why does the issue have to be so complex. And I answer. "The world will never know." Sending you guys on that spiral that I would oh so love to see and is the actual spiral in discussion throughout all of feminist discussion.

    Refute this mister.
     
  20. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,899
    Sisyphus, listen carefully!

    Stand up, walk to the bathroom, open the little white cabinet.
    Resist your temptation to think " I've never felt better, those lithium pills are a oneway track to stealing my right to be different"...etc..., open the little bottle, take the medication.

    Come back in a couple of days.

    I say this in my feminine/maculine/caring persona.
     
  21. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Sorry, been there Stud, done that.
    It's pretty simple really. Just realize.
     
  22. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,899
    Thankyou, I feel better now, how silly, forgive me.
     
  23. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    You're forgiven

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I had wanted you to refute this before we move along. It isn't like I don't care for it. If I didn't think it, I wouldn't post it. I care for it...... eh, a little. So so. Or it has some importance to my thinking. So therefore I post it, knowing full and well that it will be seen.

    The fact is, . . . . feminist discussion is surrounded around the topic (in theory) of superority and claiming who is superior or not is something of a necessity as one party will never quit calling another party inferior until someone answers the question (basically).

    Now. I have done my part so far to show that this is the case.
    I was infinitely curious as to weather or not a male is inferior (as I believe is the case sometimes), or a female is inferior.

    There are tons of information to back up the ideas. I have already given light to a few of them. It isn't like I must post this to stay up with you guys on how accurate your ideas are. Apparently, I must post them first.

    Okay. Rule one. One party is superior to the other.
    Rule two. This spiral can go on forever and it will be fun to watch so sit back and enjoy the show

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page