Are Men Obsolete?

[quote]jawara wrote:
All I’m gonna say is, when our economy fails and you need food or when terrorists’ attack, are the women of this country going to want men with balls or some emo/metro guy? Some will want the emo because they are stupid at first, but once their tummies start rumbling or need to feel “safe” kicks in…I’m sure you can figure out the rest [/quote]

So are you arguing for the necessity of MEN or are you arguing for the necessity of MASCULINITY?

Those two are not mutually exclusive.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jawara wrote:
I thought this was interesting.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/are_men_obsolete.html

This is better:
http://members.mountain.net/theanalyticpapers/polam13.htm
[/quote]

That is better. Much better.

But most of what you said after that is nonsense.

EDIT: I hadn’t gotten to the part about homosexuality yet… what drivel. And after that it gets a little misogynistic for my taste… but there may be some truth to it.

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Glad to see you value your misogyny over reality man. That takes some serious depth of uh…character?
[/quote]

Misogyny? For pointing out the facts?

What benefit do derive from thinking like some sort of quasi-male FemiDyke?

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If you want to talk history, check out the relatively short amount of time that women have been allowed to learn to even read, then get back to me.

“Social conditioning” does, in fact, go back thousands of years.

Are you really trying to argue that women have had equal access to education and the other conditions necessary for innovation throughout the course of history? Really?

I think that if women on the whole had a natural apptitude for innovation, cultures that allowed women more freedom to explore and invent would have dominated the planet long ago. [/quote]

Uh, does this need to be stated? Really?

I do know some women engineers, btw. But they’re not the type that will be procreating or passing on their engineering aptitude to their children, if you know what I mean.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

LOL. OK. You start your list of famous female scientists and engineers throughout history, and I’ll start mine and we’ll see whose is bigger. I’m sure that “social conditioning” goes way back for several thousands of years.

Classic PRC post. Fantastic. Don’t EVER stop posting
[/quote]

Do you ever write anything different? Shouldn’t you be swinging from FightingIrish’s nuts somewhere else on this forum?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Glad to see you value your misogyny over reality man. That takes some serious depth of uh…character?

Misogyny? For pointing out the facts?

What benefit do derive from thinking like some sort of quasi-male FemiDyke?

[/quote]

No, for pointing out half of a fact and ignoring 10 others in order to do so.

I see you don’t actually have an argument here as you seem to be moving on to the personal attacks.

“Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

[quote]Makavali wrote:
The female lack of spatial awareness makes me think we’ll be around for a while yet.[/quote]

I forget where I saw it, but I remember a show in which they put a bunch of males and females through different tests to see how they did and then looked at the testosterone levels of each person to see how it correlated. One test was manuevering a backhoe, and the woman with the highest test level did far better than any of the other women, same with the men(although if I remember correctly all of the men passed the test pretty easily where few of the women did).

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Glad to see you value your misogyny over reality man. That takes some serious depth of uh…character?

Misogyny? For pointing out the facts?

What benefit do derive from thinking like some sort of quasi-male FemiDyke?

No, for pointing out half of a fact and ignoring 10 others in order to do so.

I see you don’t actually have an argument here as you seem to be moving on to the personal attacks.

“Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
[/quote]

How’s that list coming, Stronghold?

It won’t happen. Women can succeed in technical fields, but you’re always going to find more men in them.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Glad to see you value your misogyny over reality man. That takes some serious depth of uh…character?

Misogyny? For pointing out the facts?

What benefit do derive from thinking like some sort of quasi-male FemiDyke?

No, for pointing out half of a fact and ignoring 10 others in order to do so.

I see you don’t actually have an argument here as you seem to be moving on to the personal attacks.

“Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

How’s that list coming, Stronghold?
[/quote]

Since we’re all about answering questions, why don’t you address the historical and sociological FACTS with which you have been confronted rather than writing them off as “quasi-male and femiDyke” bullshit because they don’t support your (weak) argument? Prove to me somehow that women have had equal access to education and have been brought up to pursue those things going back thousands of years. Since your point was that social constructs are somehow a recent phenomenon, this should be easy for you if you have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about, no?

Want to talk lists? Remove every male born before 1900 from that list of men, and then we could start from there.

Some species of plants will go hermaphrodite if they do not get pollinated by a male.

In those cases males of the species are obsolete.

This would never be the case with humans…who would take out the trash and kill spiders and stuff…?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If you want to talk history, check out the relatively short amount of time that women have been allowed to learn to even read, then get back to me.

“Social conditioning” does, in fact, go back thousands of years.

Are you really trying to argue that women have had equal access to education and the other conditions necessary for innovation throughout the course of history? Really?

I think that if women on the whole had a natural apptitude for innovation, cultures that allowed women more freedom to explore and invent would have dominated the planet long ago.

Uh, does this need to be stated? Really?

[/quote]
I can see you didn’t go to college. According to the Feminists who dominate every university campus, all of women’s short comings, from the lack of women in the top ranks of physicists, to their inability to read a map are the fault of the patriarchy, not of biology. So yes, sometimes common sense needs to be injected into the conversation.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Some species of plants will go hermaphrodite if they do not get pollinated by a male.

In those cases males of the species are obsolete.

This would never be the case with humans…who would take out the trash and kill spiders and stuff…?[/quote]

No one. Women lack the cognitive power that enables such complex behaviors.

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If you want to talk history, check out the relatively short amount of time that women have been allowed to learn to even read, then get back to me.

“Social conditioning” does, in fact, go back thousands of years.

Are you really trying to argue that women have had equal access to education and the other conditions necessary for innovation throughout the course of history? Really?

I think that if women on the whole had a natural apptitude for innovation, cultures that allowed women more freedom to explore and invent would have dominated the planet long ago.

Uh, does this need to be stated? Really?

I can see you didn’t go to college. According to the Feminists who dominate every university campus, all of women’s short comings, from the lack of women in the top ranks of physicists, to their inability to read a map are the fault of the patriarchy, not of biology. So yes, sometimes common sense needs to be injected into the conversation. [/quote]

Yes, all of that pesky science and those facts.

Do you also believe that African slaves in America during the 17th and 18th centuries did not achieve similarly to white Americans due primarily to some biological inferiority?

Do you believe that European Jews had a shorter average lifespan than Americans during the early 1940’s due to some biological disadvantage?

I can only hope that you two don’t vote with the intelligence with which you post.

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:

I think that if women on the whole had a natural apptitude for innovation, cultures that allowed women more freedom to explore and invent would have dominated the planet long ago.

Uh, does this need to be stated? Really?

I can see you didn’t go to college. According to the Feminists who dominate every university campus, all of women’s short comings, from the lack of women in the top ranks of physicists, to their inability to read a map are the fault of the patriarchy, not of biology. So yes, sometimes common sense needs to be injected into the conversation.

Yes, all of that pesky science and those facts.

Do you also believe that African slaves in America during the 17th and 18th centuries did not achieve similarly to white Americans due primarily to some biological inferiority?

Do you believe that European Jews had a shorter average lifespan than Americans during the early 1940’s due to some biological disadvantage?

I can only hope that you two don’t vote with the intelligence with which you post.[/quote]

Are you really trying to claim that I am a racist or a holocaust denier because my opinion overlaps with PRCal’s somewhat? Get your head out of your ass and keep straight who you are talking to.

Read my statement at the top again and try to understand what it means. Until the last few hundred years human beings have always lived on the edge of starvation. Until the last thousand years if you lost a war, your tribe was exterminated. If women had the same aptitude for innovation as men, that power would have been harnessed hundreds of thousands of years ago, because survival made it absolutely necessary to use every resource at your disposal. Women weren’t excluded because of the mean old patriarchy. Some tribes and cultures held women down because of some biological jealousy, but if women were great inventors, the tribes/cultures/civilizations that took advantage of women’s talents would have dominated the ones that didn’t. Do you think cultures that refused to tap into 50% of their intellectual resources would have always dominated those cultures that used every mind at it’s disposal? Of course not. The proto-feminist cultures would have swept the board.

I’ve never said women don’t have the capacity to do science or math. I have said and will continue to say that I don’t think that on the whole women and men will ever be equal in this regard. There will be many women who rise to the top in math and science, and it is an injustice and a waste that many women who would have done well in these fields in the past were excluded because of their gender. But their numbers will never be equal to men. Our hormones shape the way our brains work, and men have more testosterone than women and women have more estrogen than men. Some women have a lot more testosterone than average, more than the average man, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Feminists claim that gender is a social construct, but that is a lie. It is biology. Specific gender roles may be assigned by culture, but some gender roles are pretty much universal, which shows that they are more deeply embedded than culture. Political correctness, and trying to cram women into jobs that are traditionally masculine is an injustice and a waste. Remove barriers, and let people rise on their own merits. But feminist laws, like Title 9, that try to enforce an arbitrary equality are an injustice.

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
If you want to talk history, check out the relatively short amount of time that women have been allowed to learn to even read, then get back to me.

“Social conditioning” does, in fact, go back thousands of years.

Are you really trying to argue that women have had equal access to education and the other conditions necessary for innovation throughout the course of history? Really?

I think that if women on the whole had a natural apptitude for innovation, cultures that allowed women more freedom to explore and invent would have dominated the planet long ago.

Uh, does this need to be stated? Really?

I can see you didn’t go to college. According to the Feminists who dominate every university campus, all of women’s short comings, from the lack of women in the top ranks of physicists, to their inability to read a map are the fault of the patriarchy, not of biology. So yes, sometimes common sense needs to be injected into the conversation. [/quote]

Point taken.

Actually, the college I went to was divided into North Campus and South Campus. North Campus contained all of the humanities and fuzzy studies and South Campus contained all of the science and engineering. If you were on South Campus, you dealt very little with the FemiDykes and the “men” who loved them, race whiners, and Marxist agitators.

I guess I like having these “black is white” conversations with liberals because they usually serve to illustrate either the bubble they live in or their lack of work experience.

My dad and I tried to get my sister into electrical engineering. She actually did very well in her EE courses at military academy she went to, which were a general ed requirement. But she wasn’t interested.

Same thing with my wife and the plumbing, despite her aptitude for fixing things herself.

Generally, women may or may not have an aptitude for certain things that men typically do, but they don’t do them because they are uninterested or have men to do them for them.

I think it’s great how the sexes complement one another. Of course, that’s just my “misogyny” speaking. If only we had a world where we were raised in gender ambiguity, then we could get rid of this eons-old patriarchy, right? LOL.

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Glad to see you value your misogyny over reality man. That takes some serious depth of uh…character?

Misogyny? For pointing out the facts?

What benefit do derive from thinking like some sort of quasi-male FemiDyke?

No, for pointing out half of a fact and ignoring 10 others in order to do so.

I see you don’t actually have an argument here as you seem to be moving on to the personal attacks.

“Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

How’s that list coming, Stronghold?

Since we’re all about answering questions, why don’t you address the historical and sociological FACTS with which you have been confronted rather than writing them off as “quasi-male and femiDyke” bullshit because they don’t support your (weak) argument? [/quote]

Actually, I’m not at all interested in further discussion with you on this one. I’m a lot more interested in what causes someone with male genitalia to think this way. Do you get laid more often because you say stuff like this to women? Did your mother teach you to think this way? Was she or one of your sisters some brilliant scientist/engineer? Did you major in feminist studies at some university?

…the great thing about being a man is that i do not depend on other’s [anymore] to define myself. At one point you mature and realise that who you are as a man is a choice you make. Not a fad, not an article, not some social framework of reference, not my family or partner decides or molds this for me but me. So what does that make you?

The ignorance and extremist positions in this thread are entertaining, but are off base nonetheless. Why do people think in such black and white terms all the time?

As with most other human characteristics, the differences between men and women are due to BOTH genetics and environment.

Women tend, on average, to perform better on verbal intelligence tests. Men tend, on average, to perform better on spatial and math tests. That’s a statistical fact that reflects biological differences in the brains between men and women. It also reflects differences in social programming.

It’s like the racial intelligence thread. While these average differences exist, there will always be outliers in both groups, and you can’t make categorical statements that ignore these outliers. Regardless of averages, there are women with far more mathematical/spatial intelligence than anyone in this thread. Anyone that uses these averages as an excuse to feel superior is saying more about his lack of self-esteem than anything else.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Glad to see you value your misogyny over reality man. That takes some serious depth of uh…character?

Misogyny? For pointing out the facts?

What benefit do derive from thinking like some sort of quasi-male FemiDyke?

No, for pointing out half of a fact and ignoring 10 others in order to do so.

I see you don’t actually have an argument here as you seem to be moving on to the personal attacks.

“Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

How’s that list coming, Stronghold?

Since we’re all about answering questions, why don’t you address the historical and sociological FACTS with which you have been confronted rather than writing them off as “quasi-male and femiDyke” bullshit because they don’t support your (weak) argument?

Actually, I’m not at all interested in further discussion with you on this one. I’m a lot more interested in what causes someone with male genitalia to think this way. Do you get laid more often because you say stuff like this to women? Did your mother teach you to think this way? Was she or one of your sisters some brilliant scientist/engineer? Did you major in feminist studies at some university? [/quote]

Do you have such little intellectual capability that you must resort to questioning my manhood in order to act like you have an argument at all? Is “How do you get laid, bro!?” somehow part of a larger line or reasoning, or are you trying to psychoanalyze me using the same sciences that you called fake in an earlier post?

I can see that you are just trolling and not reading my posts since those questions have been answered already in this thread in responses to you.

I am done responding to you as I think your behavior in this thread paints a fairly clear picture of the utter lack of rational thought behind your statements and says more about how wrong you are than I could in the amount of time I’m willing to waste arguing with misogynists on the interwebz.