|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:29 PM December 14th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that it was not overtly anti-male, but it was implicitly anti-male, because of the sound effects. The whole idea that we are in a war of men vs. women is exactly the core of feminist dogma.
Also, it treated the "end of men" as a "ha-ha" funny idea. Try to imagine NPR broadcasting a light-hearted, witty story about the possible "end of women." It would never happen, not in a million years.
Not to mention the fairly obvious observation that the end of the Y chromo would itself not even necessitate the end of the male gender. It's wouldn't have to be as simple as that. (By the time the Y chromo vanishes due to slow, evolutionary change, gender differentiation itself might develop different triggers, that don't require the Y chromo in the first place.) But, I guess they didn't want such pesky details to get in the way of their happy fantasies about the "end of men."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, yes, I see what you mean. I can see where you may believe that there was an extra-stealthy-subtle approach to male-whacking going on. Perhaps the ambiguity of the way they framed the story is an attempt to fend off criticism in advance... hmmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:33 PM December 14th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Article was interesting (purely from a scientific view).
I agree the radio brodcast had nothing overtly sexist. Mostly, I would write any sexism in this article to an explanation that has been over simplified for the layman. In an effort to make it inertesting they have glossed over some very relavent details (that are not relevent to a layman understanding).
One of the details?... If you take away the men, you also remove the women. As discussed in the broadcast, evolutionary processes would compensate for the removal of men from the species (turtles), either by determining men some other way, or by creating a new sex. Women's role in reproduction is dictated by the need for men (and the other way around). If we do away with one, we have to do away with the other and something new has to be created to replace them all together.
In the end, from a personal day-to-day view, who cares. Interesting and valuable research, but certainly no immediately relevant results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:39 AM December 18th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder why it is not mentioned in these articles that human eggs can also be obtained from stem cells, therefore eliminating the need for women.....scientists already achieved this feat in 2002 in mouses, so it's likely it will become real also for humans. Oh wait, I know, it's because the media are under feminazi control.
By the way, in some species (birds and snakes), males have an XX combo and females an XY one, so does it mean all females birds and snakes will disappear in the long term ?
Sooner or later, male homosexuality will become the only way forward for the advancement of men's reproductive rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I knew I should have saved a link to that article I recently read about that reputed scientist who refuted the whole "y-chromosome degeneration" contemporary myth.. anyhow, that nonsense shouldn't be supported/repeated here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's pretty clear that the genes that men's exclusive "Y" chromosome has been shedding have to do with susceptibility to female artifice, deception, and bullsh*t.
The "gullibility" gene ... gone.
The "chivalry" gene ... discarded due to dysfunctionality.
The "romantic" gene ... erased as a necessary adaptation to feminism.
The "marriage" gene ... next to be extinguished as the "Y" repairs itself from Xcessive exposure to female predation.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank God I never donated a penny to NPR. I almost did but it was pointed out to me that they give free uncritical time to feminazis. Talk about good timing! I will remember this series for at least 5-10 years, and not in a good way...
Part two of the series was followed by a segment where a feminazi said how good it was to teach at an all girls school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:25 PM December 15th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
There was a time when they said that we Indians would eventualy "vanish". Well we aren't high in number, but over one hundred years of saying that Indians are the "vanishing americans" we are still here.
Then when we didn't "vanish" they said we will be absorbed into the larger culture and that "being indian" would "vanish". But here we Indians are in the midst of a HUGE cultural revival. (I am personaly and proudly a part of this revival) When ever a certain group obtains supirior rights and power over another group, the larger group says that the "smaller" group will "vanish". (The Nazis cheated however and tried to help it along in the case of the Jews) But as a rule I have noticed that very rarely does a said group ever vanish. In fact many times they grow stronger. It was the case with Blacks, The Jewish people, American Indians and it will be the same with men, I think.
The men's movement seems to be just the begining of it. And like the Indian revival, I will also be a proud partisipant in the MEN'S revival.
So don't worry. as long as there are rebels amoung the oppressed there is ALWAYS hope. Blacks had Harriet Tubman, in the slave days. We Indians had Geronimo, Cheif Joseph, and now a days guys like Russell Means.
As men we have many of our own rebels who will NEVER let men die, figureatively or literaly.
Glenn Sacks and others spring to mind. Not to mention all of us here at MANN.
Personaly, though ,if it came right down to it, I'd MUCH rather "die" a man than live as a Wussie-poopie.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:50 PM December 16th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Ragtime.
Thank you.
I try.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:13 PM December 15th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Running features on the "end of men" is stupid. Why not instead run a feature on the destruction of men? Imprisoning men, criminalizing male sexuality, ignoring domestic violence against men, ignoring men's health, etc. Why don't you see that? Because the media is run by a bunch of male haters who would rather speculate about "the end of men" than consider their contempt for men.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
