|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:06 PM November 30th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like us ball scratching, channel surfing, loogie spitting knuckle draggers will still be around to torment the living sh*t out of women for eons to come. Somewhere, I can hear the air coming out of (your favorite feminazi name here) voodoo science Goodyears.
NEVER underestimate the power and resiliency of the Y-Factor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:15 PM November 30th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that we men exist at all annoys feminists. We don't even really have to DO anything. just be.
I find some solace in that. (^_^)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So long bullshit science, hello factual information, and a REAL scientific education.
I read some where that the Y chromosome actually keeps itself alive by "taking" genes of the Barr Body X and adapting that way. Has anyone heard of this? The Y chromosome keeps adapting and evolving through gene "borrowing" from the first X chromosome. Sounds pretty innovative and clever to me. Great way to show off evolutionary tactics! But the article was obviously written by a feminazi biased journalist because they called this adaptation done by the Y chromosome "narcissistic" and "greedy" and committing "ego driven genetic theft". You know if it was the female second X chromosome, it would be called "feminine genius," "female chromosome empowerment," and "girl chromosome power", or some other ridiculous radical feminist shit like that. Typical...
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I meant that before I read *this* article and had anyone heard of something similar to the idea of gene borrowing before reading this article. I had read this some place else in another article and that's where I found the journalist's bias.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The quote that struck me in reading this piece --
"... the Y seems to have its own self-repair mechanism..."
On a global, social scale, that's a pretty apt description of the work men are now about accomplishing in the aftermath of 40-plus years of vile feminist tyranny.
Men have been the experts at repairing everything for eons; and there's some nice poetic justice in knowing we're also genetically coded to repair ourselves and move well beyond feminism!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:07 PM December 2nd, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually all these discussions about the Y chromosome are useless....I think that most people don't even know that in some bird and snake species, the male is XX and the female is XY. Does it mean that the female birds and snakes will disappear in million of years from now ?
Anyway, the genetic improvement of humans through gene manipulation will solve all these problems in the next future, so this conversation makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"it is the male chromosome, the seat of human recklessness" Nature vs. Nurture
It is a dogma of Feminism, indeed the political Left generally, that human character and behaviour are determined by one's social environment, not by one's biology. This is the famous 'nature versus nurture' debate, a subject discussed very eloquently by Steven Pinker in his book 'The Blank Slate'.
To put it simply, the Left has generally been 'nurturist' or 'social constructionist', and the political Right in contrast has been 'nativist', or 'essentialist'. This is roughly because the Left wants to implement social change, and it believes, mistakenly, that social constructionism makes social change possible, and essentialism makes social change impossible.
This view probably came originally from the critique of social class. Conservatives argued that royals and aristocrats enjoyed their privilege because they were inherently superior to everyone else, 'well-bred', 'blue-blooded'; the Right used nature as a way of justifying the political status quo. The Left responded, quite correctly, that aristocracy and class are social and cultural artefacts, that there is nothing at all 'natural' about them, that they have nothing to do with biology. In discussing social class, this argument worked well up to a point.
The Intellectual Poverty of Feminism
The feminist movement appropriated the Left's theory of class, and tried to apply it to sex, but unfortunately it simply doesn't work.
There is no biological difference between the ruling class and the working class, but to argue that there is no biological difference between men and women is simply absurd.
Worse still, we see time and again that feminists don't even stick to their own social constructionist dogma. They are social constructionist when it suits them, and essentialist when that suits them. Feminism has never been consistently Left-wing; there is an uneasy tension within feminism between Left and Right wing ideas.
The nature of femi-nazism
Feminist derision of the Y-chromosome is a perfect illustration. If human behaviour is socially constructed, then the Y-chromosome (and indeed the X-chromosome) is entirely irrelevant.
However, feminists see the Y-chromosome as 'the seat of human recklessness'. All evil in the world is because of men, and men are this way because of the Y-chromosome. Therefore the decline of the Y-chromosome means the decline of men, and therefore the decline of evil in the world. It is a theory which teaches not only the moral superiority of women, but their biological superiority too.
One can also discern a speculative theory of history; over the course of historical time, a great process will be played out - namely the decline of the Y-chromosome - and the result will be that the virtuous will inherit the Earth. A Reich to last for a thousand years.
We can discern many of the typical hallmarks of authoritarianism. Science - and indeed art - is of no inherent interest; it is only of interest as an instrument of political propaganda. Science is good if it serves the interests of the party, bad if it does not. This was the attitude in Hitler's Germany, and in Stalinist Russia, and it is also the attitude of the feminist movement.
People in the West tolerate feminism only because they mistakenly believe it to be benign. It is far from benign. It is the Western world's last unchallenged bastion of authoritarianism.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent post!
Part of feminism's intellectual poverty is its inability to recognize its own numerous contradictions.
The "nature vs. nurture" debate reveals any number them, including:
- women are "inherently" non-violent
- women are "inherently" more nurturing
- women are "inherently" more empathetic
- women are "inherently" better cooperators
Add your own, they're easy to spot. Evidence that feminists are "essentialists" when its an advantage, and "social-constructivists" when they're trying to scam federal tax-dollars to criminalize men.
Notice that only one gender needs to be "reconstructed..."
The list above has come in very handy to deceive and bamboozle, especially to secure special powers and privileges in the legal system.
There's likely not a Family Court judge in the country who doesn't chant these feminist myths like a delusional mantra every time they take the bench!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:33 PM December 3rd, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
yes, great post!
Feminists are reactionary toward men. But for women they always, always, look at the social environment when women do any sort of wrong, or are disadvantaged in whatever way they say. Yet, when women do right, or have swhatever sort of advantage over men, it is because women are inherently this way. Thus women are fundamentally superior to men.
This is so damn obvious that I think it's beyond ridiculous that men of the left are afraid to say anything to the feminists.
(I kind of agree with Noam Chomsky's philosphy, libertarian (left))
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gene conversion in the palindromes represents a form of "genetic masturbation" The fact that she used the word 'masturbation' is very telling. She could have used 'self-reliance', 'independence', 'self-repair', 'parthenogenesis', or any number of other terms, but instead she chose 'masturbation'.
Look at the difference in cultural attitude towards male and female masturbation. Female masturbation is good - liberated, erotic, healthy - but male masturbation is bad - shameful, disgusting, embarrassing.
Male masturbation is seen as essentially a poor substitute for sex with a woman - the last resort of lonely sexual failures who can't find anything better. Female masturbation, on the other hand, is not seen as a poor substitute for sex with a man. It is not seen as a substitute for anything, it is seen as a valid form of sexual expression in its own right.
This insult would not have worked if directed against women. What she is saying, in effect, is that due the the functioning of the Y-chromosome, all men are natural born jerkoffs.
This is just more anti-male hate speech, trying to pass itself off a sscience.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:14 PM December 2nd, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, I find the feminist double standards about masturbation pretty apt.
I've always thought the feminists SHOULD go SCREW THEMSELVES! :-)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
