Ancient Skulls Show Civilization Rose As Testosterone Fell

An anonymous reader writes Even though modern humans started appearing around 200,000 years ago, it was only about 50,000 years ago that artistry and tool making became popular. New research shows that society bloomed when testosterone levels in humans started dropping. A paper published in the journal Current Anthropology, suggests that a testosterone deficit facilitated the friendliness and cooperation between humans, which lead to modern society. "Whatever the cause, reduced testosterone levels enabled increasingly social people to better learn from and cooperate with each other, allowing the acceleration of cultural and technological innovation that is the hallmark of modern human success," says University of Utah biology graduate student Robert Cieri.

Comments

correlation, causation

[roc97007]

I have trouble with pronouncements like these, because it's so easy to jump to conclusions about correlation and causation.

It seems like their conclusion might have a Politically Correct component. Could it be instead that civilization caused a general lowering of testosterone, because high testosterone levels were no longer vital to survival?

Re:correlation, causation

[Mr D from 63]

Could it be instead that civilization caused a general lowering of testosterone, because high testosterone levels were no longer vital to survival?

If you follow evolutionary theory, that's the first conclusion one should reach. To assume otherwise is quite scientifically naive. As humans became more proficient at survival and had more time on their hands, being able to sit still and think for a little while was likely a good thing.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it be instead that civilization caused a general lowering of testosterone, because high testosterone levels were no longer vital to survival?

Or that the removal of some other threat or improvement in environmental conditions meant both that conditions existed that favoured the rise of civilisation and that testosterone was no longer required to the same extent as previously.

Or even that testosterone played its role in enabling humans to overcome a threat that needed to be overcome in order for civiliation to be practical, and since that threat had been overcome the testosterone was no longer needed... in which case it was responsible for the rise of civilisation, not an obstacle to it.

Re:correlation, causation

[wisnoskij]

It is also the only reasonable theory form a biological standpoint, as Testosterone has been studied exhaustively and simply does not in anyway reduce cooperation or friendliness. In fact in general testosterone seems to be positively correlated to number of friends and ability to cooperate.

Why should it have the opposite effect in ancient humans?

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

That's retarded. How do you think humans could "civilize" until their anger levels dropped to manageable levels? The answer is they couldn't. They fought each other over every slight real or imagined. They ate the brains and bodies of those they defeated. It's a lot like the middle east, now.

Re:correlation, causation

[erroneus]

Nice "wisdom" there. But why did you stop thinking there? There IS definitely a link between excessive testosterone and the lowering of sustained logic, reason and mental stability and order. (Just as there is similar evidence liking excessive estrogen with similar behaviors among women) What happens to people, both men and women when they are on steroids? That's been well established in the medical sciences for decades.

So to say correlation/causation is a problem here conveniently missed the established facts and among these the effect of higher testosterone on mental capacity.

I think the recognition of corre-cause fundamental principle is an important aspect of reasoning. But it is not the whole of debunking anything. (And yes, nothing you say disagrees with that statement.) But to simply state "correlation != causation" and walk away as if you've debunked something is pretty commonly expressed in these parts and I find it disturbing.

We're bio-chemical machines. The efficacy of the machines has everything to do with what's in them, what the balances are and especially what we put into them. But even if that balance is essentially natural or origin and basis, the outcome is still an effect of the factors at play. That is to say, groups of people with higher levels than others show predictable results categorically speaking. (But that's "racist" and we're not allowed to talk about that either)

If anything, this "finding" is just another grain of evidence supporting the obvious where human evolution are concerned. As we continue to value intellectual ability over physical ability, those who have better intellectual ability will do better than those that do not. And for societies to evolve in a direction which favors mind power over physical power literally requires and causes a reduction in that which inhibits it the most. Think in terms of rust causing heat which causes more rust and it's not so much corre-cause as it is factors feeding into one another.

No, I don't favor the "men are obsolete" argument as it's ridiculous on its face. Feminism, like so many other hate-focused idealisms, requires an enemy. And the biggest problem with feminism's enemy is that they are the ones who create and maintain pretty much everything. That's why all of the push for "more women in these fields." The push is because as men continue to become disenfranchised, they know there is a need to replace them. The problem is they don't have anyone who WANTS to replace them because cetegorically speaking, women are interested in what women are interested in while men are interested in what interests men. And there's a certain amount of "nature" driving this fact. Deviations are fine and welcome, but attempting to force idealism over nature has NEVER worked in all of history for any sustainable amount of time and has never resulted in happiness, peace or harmony. So let's not take the observation and the apparent conclusions into political space.

Men cannot be obsolete if only because we are half of that biological basis of sustainable reproduction, development and adaptation. We need to be able to breed and cross-breed as a means of continuation. And that requires men and women... until they can effectively create artificial sperm... which yes, I know they're working on even now.

Re:correlation, causation

[mspohr]

Interesting assertion which is contrary to my reading of the literature as well as the study in question.
Citation needed.

Re:correlation, causation

[wierd_w]

It's probably an "energy" issue.

Testosterone is linked with increased muscle mass, and thus with increased rest metabolism. A civilization that has lots of "Adonis" look-a-likes sitting around in the winter will not survive as well as a civilization with lots of beanpoles sitting around in the winter, because the beanpoles require less food per person per winter, and as such, the society will have more energy available to invest in improvements in technology and culture.

So, while increased testosterone is more sexually attractive, lower testosterone would have conferred a large survival advantage in ancient human history.

Some experiments could be devised to test this idea in fact--

Screen the population for a threshold of testosterone production, with a good distribution over ages, (so not all the low T people are 65+ and under 12) divide into two groups of 100, one with low T, and one with high T, pay them to live in isolation in a nice little log cabin up in the mountains, then just monitor their food consumption. According to the theory, the higher T population should consume more food doing the same rest activities as the lower T group. The experiment should determine a rough baseline for the difference, from which a (dangerous) extrapolation could be made.

Re:correlation, causation

[jd]

Doesn't work. Humans started having more time on their hands 1.8 million years ago, but this DECLINED as religion (50k years ago) and agriculture (20k years ago) arose. With the advent of full-time farming (7k years ago) free time almost entirely vanished.

Nomadic peoples had more free time than any sedentary society prior to the middle of the 20th century, and even then only for the gentry and the middle classes, where said middle classes have since almost entirely suffered extermination at the hands of the rich.

This is settled science. Archaeology, genetics and anthropology have actually been in agreement on some things. The theories being propounded attempt to fit a new observation into said settled science. There is nothing naive about building on an existing foundation.

If you don't like said foundation, do the leg work, write up a paper and make yourself famous. Otherwise, stick to merely disagreeing with it rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

Re:correlation, causation

[tylikcat]

This, in turn, assumes that the effects of testosterone are consistant and linear, and that they are consistent across other variables, and that's not a safe assumption. First, there are likely one or more optima with testosterone levels, with some loss of function when not as those optima. Second, the effects are likely influenced strongly by other factors. For instance, oxytocin gets a lot of press as being the hug drug and all that, and its effects in terms of promoting social bonding and trust and so are get a lot of press. What gets less press is that while it promotes in-group bonding, it promotes out-group agression - high oxytocin levels are correlated by hostility towards strangers and the like.

Re:correlation, causation

[Teun]

Ah that could explain why rednecks are mainly found in the south, up north winter has taken care of them :)

Re:correlation, causation

[tylikcat]

Bear in mind that it's unlikely that lower testosterone levels would be selected for merely because "the testosterone was no longer needed..." You'd expect to see a fitness cost before that happened.

(Mind you, this is assuming the effect is happening at the level of genetic selection - testosterone could conceivably change as a response to a changing environment, for instance.)

Re:correlation, causation

[tylikcat]

As I mentioned above, there are likely one or more optima for testosterone, with a loss of function correlated with not being on one of those optima. It's not likely (looking at other hormonal systems) that it's simply a linear relationship - both too much and too little are possible. (There is also a lot of room for changes on the level of receptor density or binding affinity - so a smaller amount of testosterone could conceivably have more effect.)

"Feminism, like so many other hate-focused idealisms, requires an enemy."

Spending a lot of time around feminists, I note a distinct lack of hate focused ideology. (There are boundary cases - Dworking and MacKinnon being the most obvious - but even they tend to be badly misquoted and taken out of context.) Apparently an awful lot of people have a vested interested in portraying feminism as such.

Re:correlation, causation

[Intrepid imaginaut]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

The study's results, however, contradict this view sharply. Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. "The preconception that testosterone only causes aggressive or egoistic behavior in humans is thus clearly refuted," sums up Eisenegger. Instead, the findings suggest that the hormone increases the sensitivity for status. For animal species with relatively simple social systems, an increased awareness for status may express itself in aggressiveness. "In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression," surmises study co-author Michael Naef from Royal Holloway London. "The interplay between testosterone and the socially differentiated environment of humans, and not testosterone itself, probably causes fair or aggressive behavior."

Moreover the study shows that the popular wisdom that the hormone causes aggression is apparently deeply entrenched: those test subjects who believed they had received the testosterone compound and not the placebo stood out with their conspicuously unfair offers. It is possible that these persons exploited the popular wisdom to legitimate their unfair actions. Economist Michael Naef states: "It appears that it is not testosterone itself that induces aggressiveness, but rather the myth surrounding the hormone. In a society where qualities and manners of behavior are increasingly traced to biological causes and thereby partly legitimated, this should make us sit up and take notice." The study clearly demonstrates the influence of both social as well as biological factors on human behavior.

Re:correlation, causation

[ShanghaiBill]

Citation needed.

Animal studies have shown a strong correlation between testosterone and aggression (the opposite of what the GPP asserts). In humans, the data is less conclusive, but tends to show a similar correlation. Wisnoskij's assertion that testosterone makes people friendly and cooperative is not supported by any evidence that I can find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression#Testosterone
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2029601
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/testosterone-promotes-agression-aut-12-06-09/

Re:correlation, causation

[Intrepid imaginaut]

See the post above your own.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

But that doesn't explain why you're a racist. It's the twenty-first century. Lose the racism. It's just as bad against white people as it is against any other race.

Re:correlation, causation

[thebjorn]

There IS definitely a link between excessive testosterone and the lowering of sustained logic, reason and mental stability and order. (Just as there is similar evidence liking excessive estrogen with similar behaviors among women) What happens to people, both men and women when they are on steroids? That's been well established in the medical sciences for decades.

Except that it hasn't. If you're thinking about the so-called "roid-rage" phenomenon, it is mostly media created and in any case has nothing to do with normal uses or levels of testosterone. Remember that people who use steroids to get bigger muscles use more than 10 times the replacement dosage(!)

Re:correlation, causation

[Mr D from 63]

Good points, and I certainly would not pretend to understand all the factors. My point was more along the lines of this being on of many things we see that seems to skip over the fundamental basic of evolution to make some other correlation. The one I proposed was certainly not enlightened, but more an example, albeit a poor one based on your response. I just get a little tired of these article suggesting certain relationships when they are merely studying them and have only circumstantial evidence. Evolutionary theory would suggest that reproductive success was greater for those with lower testosterone, so there would seem to be some benefit. That would seem to be the place to start, or at least acknowledge. Make all theories you want, and test them, but don't go announcing the to the world the minute you get one correlation.

Re:correlation, causation

[erroneus]

Please at least google the correlation between agressive and violent behavior with higher levels of testosterone? I don't need to make an argument when there is that. That steroid use makes the distinctive results more clear and obvious with clear "before and after" results is a terrific sign post which mere genetic and other natural survey oriented studies can seek to prove or disprove... and HAVE. Unfortunately the ones which show that people of different races have variying levels which may account for their individual potential and historical acheivement are also looked upon badly... due to politics.

Re:correlation, causation

[Kkloe]

or that the ones with high testosterone were the ones sent out to fight other tribes or hunt where there was a higher chance of dying/being hurt in such way that you died later by diseases and if the community is small enough them dying of would have made a great impact on passing of the higher testosterone gene

Re:correlation, causation

[Wycliffe]

Both are making assumptions but the later is the correct assumption.
Unless you have a rational reason for WHY testosterone levels fell then it makes alot more sense to
say that "the rise of civilization caused testosterone to fall" than it does to say that some unknown
force caused testosterone to fall which caused civilization to rise so the correct headline should read:

            Ancient Skulls Show Testosterone Fell as Civilization Rose

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it does imply that you're an ignorant fool with no level of tolerance for anybody who doesn't fit you're cookie cutter mold of what a person should be like. Remember, those rednecks made up a good portion of the NASA teams that sent people to the moon.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Most mainstream feminists are more subtle about it. It's not unlike racist organizations that have been getting increasingly subtle with their message as people are less and less inclined to accept the overt.

But, the hate is definitely still there with feminists. Despite all the sexual violence committed by women, they'll make up whatever rationalizations are needed to focus on men enaged in that sort of behavior. Nearly half of all domestic violence offenders are women, but you don't hear them going on about that, you hear them going on about how dangerous men are.

You hear them going on and on about income inequality, but there's little or no concern paid to the men that work lowpaying, dangerous jobs; they're just as overrepresented there as at the top of the hierarchy.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

correlation and castration....

Re:correlation, causation

[ultranova]

"Ancient skulls show testosterone levels in humans fell around the time civilization rose".

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Reputable scientists try not to correlate this in humans because it looks like racism. Those with African heritage have much higher testosterone levels which kind of shows in their more aggressive natures. Studies have shown this over the years but mainstream science discredits them because they do not want to look racist.

Re:correlation, causation

[Teun]

Still no explanation.

Look here, the discussion is about the 'value' of testosterone for the advance of the human race and society.
It has been said here high(er) testosterone levels makes man less sociable and more aggressive, do you want to claim rednecks aren't an example for that category?

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

... If they continue to use a term as poisoned as "feminist" then you might look to question their actual motive and intent.

This is the problem right here: the term feminist has been poisoned intentionally. Its similar to the right-wing hit job on 'liberal'; the only way to defeat an idea that most people already accept is to reframe and demonize that idea as something objectionable.

You could find me a billion links to nutty, anti-male websites if you like. It doesn't matter. If you think it does matter than I allow me to discredit all right-wing politics by giving you a link to the American Nazi Party, or to discredit any idea of treating animals humanely by linking to PETA.

Feminism is the belief that women are just as capable and deserving of respect as men. Unless you believe women deserve less respect or fewer opportunities, simply for being female, congratulations, you are a feminist. Being anti-male, wanting to feminize men or de-feminize women, denying basic biological differences, or whatever other stupid idea you have been taught feminists believe, these are categorically not feminism.

Feminism is basically a social criticism that in many spheres of our society an elite group of men has taken control for their own benefit, to the exclusion of others. Keep in mind that women only gained the right to vote last century, as late as 1970 in France, and that people are still alive who remember women not being able work after marriage, legalized martial rape, and a whole bunch of other obviously misogynist practices, and its not a huge stretch to imagine that our society might still not be 100% perfect, or that social groups who were severely discriminated against in living memory still are.

Even if you are 100% self-interested, you should recognize that as women have gained more freedom over the last 50 year so have men, particularly in areas of child care and parental leave. Freedom and rights are not zero sum. The fact is that the same 'boys club' attitude that is bad for women is also bad for the vast majority of men.

I'll leave you with a Germaine Greer quote (paraphrasing):

Aspiring to equality with men is a terrible mistake, since men live and work in a frighteningly unfree and tyrannical society, one built on confederacies and conspiracies, on initiation and blooding rituals, on shared antisocial behaviour, on ostracisms and punishments, practical jokes, clannishness and discrimination.

Re:correlation, causation

[erroneus]

Kindly explain a version of feminism that doesn't blame men for the problems women experience.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you explain what the politically correct component is? I didn't pick up on that.

Testosterone has a well known link to hostility and aggression, which made sense when primitive man was fighting for his life but was less necessary when we started using our brains more than our brawn. The conclusion of the research certainly seems to agree with everything we know about testosterone. For example:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/testosterone-promotes-agression-aut-12-06-09/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression#Testosterone

"Could it be instead that civilization caused a general lowering of testosterone"

Currently there is no evidence to support this theory, the research shows the opposite happened. Testosterone-induced skull growth declined first, and then elements of civilization came about second, not the other way around.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Did your mommy not hug you enough growing up?

Re:correlation, causation

[ShanghaiBill]

See the post above your own.

That was ONE study that found that testosterone can make men more cooperative in very narrow circumstances (when they think it will improve their social status). There are many studies showing it makes both animals and people more aggressive.

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

1} Not everyone's politics are about blame, I'm more interested in what is, and how to improve things.

2) If blame is the issue, then men (not men as a category, but certain specific men) are literally to blame. If this is the truth then why should feminism pull its punches?

Re:correlation, causation

[martas]

This is the problem right here: the term feminist has been poisoned intentionally. Its similar to the right-wing hit job on 'liberal'; the only way to defeat an idea that most people already accept is to reframe and demonize that idea as something objectionable.

I don't care enough to express an opinion on the rest of your post and the debate you're in, but this part strikes me as very false. A conspiracy theory is completely unnecessary to explain the "poisoning" of the term feminism. It's entirely believable that, as radical elements of feminism naturally arose (and they did arise naturally; there's no way in hell that's a false flag operation), both non-feminists and those with actively anti-feminist inclinations lumped those radical elements with the less extreme versions of feminism. That's a story as old as time, same has happened with Islam, atheism, race relations, LGBT issues, etc. People are really bad at ignoring threatening extremes. It's a natural impulse, no deliberate poisoning necessary. As far as I know, the only viable means of fighting this trend is for the more moderate (but still similarly aligned) elements to actively, loudly disavow the radicalization of their views. Defensiveness won't get you anywhere, it'll just legitimize the suspicion surrounding the issue further.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Then let's see those many studies.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

If Feminism is about equality, why is it still only named after women? What are you willing to admit Feminism offers you that Egalitarianism cannot? Can you name one Feminist stance that doesn't blame men as the cause? If Feminism is really about equality, then what have Feminists ever sacrificed to help men achieve equality? If Feminism is about equality, why do Feminists believe it’s never okay to hit a woman, but sometimes it’s okay to hit a man? If Feminism is about equality, then why don’t they advocate 50:50 male/female hiring quotas teachers, nurses, daycare, HR, and administrative staff?

Re:correlation, causation

[epyT-R]

Thanks to 40 years of affirmative action and political correctness, pretty much all the 'science' around sex differences has been polluted beyond repair and must be called into question at this point. If some 'study' enters the mainstream media, you can be almost certain it is meant as propaganda and not to educate.

Re:correlation, causation

[epyT-R]

Most of the time, the primary motivator for cooperative behavior is the improvement (or at least continuation) of their social status.

Re:correlation, causation

[Intrepid imaginaut]

The fact is that the same 'boys club' attitude that is bad for women is also bad for the vast majority of men.

This is something feminists call "Patriarchy Theory", and it is the foundational "theory" of feminism. I use scare quotes here because it's not a theory in any scientific sense of the word, being untestable, unfalsifiable, and largely pulled out of someone's ass. Now, you can't call yourself a feminist without embracing this theory, it's as fundamental as a belief in Christ is to Christianity.

The "theory" itself simply states that men are the perennial oppressors and women are the eternally oppressed. Man bad, woman good. That's it. No right wing conspiracy theory needed to make feminism look like an idioteology.

It's embodied in such efforts as the Duluth and Swedish models of law enforcement, the former in particular still in widespread use today despite the fact of gender symmetry in domestic violence, ruining many innocent lives. So tragically flawed is it that even one of its two creators (neither of whom had any experience or qualification in social services) belatedly admitted:

"By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff [...] remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with [...] It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find."

So witness the reality of what feminism actually DOES, rather than what it claims it is.

One thing feminism does excel at however is taking credit for other peoples' achievements. The advances of technology which led to the mass production of white goods for example had far more to do with womens' roles changing in society than any gang of bra burners.

Re:correlation, causation

[epyT-R]

Which is a perfect example why political correctness is such a detriment to the free world. A society that increasingly cannot accept truth eventually succumbs to it, usually violently.

Re:correlation, causation

[roc97007]

or that the ones with high testosterone were the ones sent out to fight other tribes or hunt where there was a higher chance of dying/being hurt in such way that you died later by diseases and if the community is small enough them dying of would have made a great impact on passing of the higher testosterone gene

Which still seems to be going on, by the way.

Re:correlation, causation

[epyT-R]

redneck is a derogatory term for whites.

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

I don't care enough to express an opinion on the rest of your post and the debate you're in...

I find it pretty weird that such a logical, clear thinker has no opinion on the question of whether society is unfair to approximately 50% if its members, but fair enough, your choice.

... but this part strikes me as very false. A conspiracy theory is completely unnecessary to explain the "poisoning" of the term feminism. It's entirely believable that, as radical elements of feminism naturally arose (and they did arise naturally; there's no way in hell that's a false flag operation), both non-feminists and those with actively anti-feminist inclinations lumped those radical elements with the less extreme versions of feminism. That's a story as old as time, same has happened with Islam, atheism, race relations, LGBT issues, etc. People are really bad at ignoring threatening extremes. It's a natural impulse, no deliberate poisoning necessary. As far as I know, the only viable means of fighting this trend is for the more moderate (but still similarly aligned) elements to actively, loudly disavow the radicalization of their views.

I wouldn't describe it as a conspiracy, but as a group of people attacking an idea they view as immoral or dangerous, in the most effective way possible. This often involves picking isolated sentences out of context to make a different impression that you would get reading the entire book, or blog post or whatever. Its very effective in our soundbite, 'gotcha' culture. I think the exact same thing happens to the other groups of people you mentioned, usually by the same reactionary people.

People are really bad at ignoring threatening extremes. It's a natural impulse, no deliberate poisoning necessary. As far as I know, the only viable means of fighting this trend is for the more moderate (but still similarly aligned) elements to actively, loudly disavow the radicalization of their views.

This shifts the burden from people who over-generalize to the objects of generalization, to police other people. Trying to control free thinkers and individualists is folly, as is trying to protect the ignorant from their own errors. People who are interested will explore ideas for themselves. Gay people shouldn't need to hide the guy bare-ass in chaps and a cowboy hat, and nothing else, to be respected and have equality before the law. Feminists shouldn't have to hide the bra-burners to have the same rights and opportunities as men.

I also think that for all your example there are plenty of moderates putting their ideas out there, and denouncing extremists, and it doesn't work the way you claim it should. You can't argue people out of positions they were never argued into in the first place. The majority of anti-feminists, anti-gay, anti-whatever people who I have run into have these opinions because of cultural and political identity.

Defensiveness won't get you anywhere, it'll just legitimize the suspicion surrounding the issue further.

I wasn't trying to be defensive, but to defend an idea. I didn't see any good posts defending feminism, and plenty of weak ones attacking it.

Re:correlation, causation

[RevWaldo]

Actually I think there's a clear case of cause and effete here.

.

Re:correlation, causation

[epyT-R]

Define 'sociable'. The problem is that this spectrum is sublabled with a good/bad dichotomy, usually done by the 'educated', soft, extraverted, submissive, and effete people, who consider themselves superior to the more masculine, independent sorts. Despite what is said about them, they do speak and associate with others, but not for its own sake, but rather as part of some other goal, like work or play. They just don't have this incessant need to be around others all the time in order to function. The reality is that this group has its own 'sociability' and hierarchy that works for them. This has nothing to do with intelligence or capability. It's just too blunt and reality focused for most of those effete types to handle without falling to pieces, and naturally the effete groups doing most of the yammering these days associate positive traits like intelligence with the behaviors that make themselves feel good.

Re:correlation, causation

[martas]

I didn't say I have no opinion, I said I didn't care enough to express one, so you didn't think my post was meant as an agreement or disagreement with the rest of your arguments, which I don't feel like getting involved with.

whether society is unfair to approximately 50% if its members

You wouldn't happen to be talking about women when you say "approximately 50% if its members", would you? Careful, someone might take that the wrong way.

Gay people shouldn't need to hide the guy bare-ass in chaps and a cowboy hat, and nothing else, to be respected and have equality before the law. Feminists shouldn't have to hide the bra-burners to have the same rights and opportunities as men.

"Shouldn't have to" is a pretty non-informative statement. Children shouldn't have to die of malaria, but they do. I was telling you what approach I think has the largest chance of neutralizing the venomous effect of radical feminism/Islam/atheism/etc. It's a matter of tone, really. There's not a huge difference between what is meant when one says "feminism isn't about hating men" vs. "I am a feminist, but I don't hate men and the things I fight for are good for both genders", but one of them leads down a rabbit hole of accusations of "no true scotsman" and links to tumblr pages, while the other one has a slightly better chance of getting at least one person to think "hey, maybe I shouldn't be afraid of feminists?" Your claim that it's all men's fault that the term feminism has been poisoned isn't helping, either.

I have, unfortunately, seen enough Internet arguments to know how those things go. Fear and mistrust are too powerful. A single story about someone getting fired over saying "dongle" is worth a thousand people like you arguing what feminism "actually" is and who it's good for. Being a little more proactive about counteracting that effect can't hurt.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care enough to express an opinion on the rest of your post and the debate you're in, but this part strikes me as very false.

Why? You can go watch an episode of the West Wing to see the sentiment expressed, or you can go look at some political campaign ads.

The term "liberal" has been demonized. Like "socialism" and "unions" and the list goes on.

As far as I know, the only viable means of fighting this trend is for the more moderate (but still similarly aligned) elements to actively, loudly disavow the radicalization of their views.

Then you're not recognizing that calling out the bullshit, hyperbole, and propaganda is viable?

Defensiveness won't get you anywhere, it'll just legitimize the suspicion surrounding the issue further.

Whereas ignoring the demonisation, will only give those who do that further reason to continue to do it, because that's rewarding the behavior.

Re:correlation, causation

[Livius]

"In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression,"

Maybe in a social species that *is* aggression. (It sure feels that way to the non-status population left behind.)

Re:correlation, causation

[erroneus]

1. "Improve things"? Really? There are loads of women who would love nothing more than to raise their children instead if having babysitters do it while they work and feel guilty no matter what choice they make. And for those women who feel fine about abandoning their children to "trusted strangers," How is that an improvement?! Desensitized, unloving, unnurturing mothers?? Bad families raise bad children who grow into bad adults. And when they have children (and that's happening now) they have NO idea how to raise them.

2. Not men as a category? You can't be serious. And why "certain specific men"? And why do feminists in high government leadership positions care nothing about the very REAL anti-woman things going on in other nations and instead make up nonsense about pay gaps and all of that? Study after study shows that the reasons for many gaps and limits on upper-leadership and lack of women in certain jobs (funny, they never talk about how few women do "grunt work" like mechanics, plumbing, elentrcians, HVAC, garbage collection, truck drivers and all...yes there are some, but it's overwhelmingly male) has more to do with lack of interest and/or having other/conflicting interests in life... say for example, being a mother.

There just aren't fights left to fight for "feminism." And the harm it has done to nearly all areas and aspects they have influenced is amazing. Nothing good has happened since the right to vote has been established. (Please cite examples to the contrary) And please. When have feminists EVER demanded equal responsibility to accompany their equal rights? The draft registration is STILL a sexist law and no one cares and if anyone pushed to require women to register you can bet the feminists would be the first to say "no!"

When, thanks to feminism, women have the legal right to walk away from the responsibility of motherhood. Do men? Even if they never knew or saw the child? Nope. There is a need for equality, but equality of RESPONSIBILITY is elephant of hypocrisy in the room.

Nature gives men and women role assignment by gender. Men can't nurse babies without some serious medical modifications. Any and every time "society" thinks it's smarter than nature, and that a political idealism which challenges reality, bad things result. We live in a society where more children have only one parent and either that parent (invariably a woman) is either living on child support and welfare or is working and not taking care of her children. Neglected children cannot POSSIBLY grow up well.

Is feminism really such a great idea?

Re:correlation, causation

[erroneus]

My mother was a stay-at-home mom. And my father worked every day. My earliest memories were a mother who cooked and cleaned every day and did things with us. (She had 5 sons) And when my father came home, we all ran to the door and hugged his legs and I used to ride his boot (he was a blue-collar worker) as he walked around like Frankenstein's monster. We loved as a family in the most old fashioned and "out dated" way imaginable.

So your snark is 180 degrees off mark. Seriously. The bitter reality is that you are more likely victim of a broken home.

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

I didn't say I have no opinion, I said I didn't care enough to express one, so you didn't think my post was meant as an agreement or disagreement with the rest of your arguments, which I don't feel like getting involved with.

Fair enough, maybe I was feeling a little suspicious of your motives. I'm glad we can keep this civil.

You wouldn't happen to be talking about women when you say "approximately 50% if its members", would you? Careful, someone might take that the wrong way.

Yep, that's exactly what I meant. What is the 'wrong way' to take that statement?

"Shouldn't have to" is a pretty non-informative statement. Children shouldn't have to die of malaria, but they do. I was telling you what approach I think has the largest chance of neutralizing the venomous effect of radical feminism/Islam/atheism/etc.

I take your point about what is vs what should be. I'm not quite as fatalistic about people's attitudes, given that we raise the next generation with our values. Given the huge progress we have made on these social issues, I don't think telling radicals to tone their attitudes down will make progress happen faster. Simply, I disagree with your suggested strategy.

It's a matter of tone, really. There's not a huge difference between what is meant when one says "feminism isn't about hating men" vs. "I am a feminist, but I don't hate men and the things I fight for are good for both genders", but one of them leads down a rabbit hole of accusations of "no true scotsman" and links to tumblr pages, while the other one has a slightly better chance of getting at least one person to think "hey, maybe I shouldn't be afraid of feminists?" Your claim that it's all men's fault that the term feminism has been poisoned isn't helping, either.

I don't get the difference between your two tones here, or which one you think is me. Maybe you could explain this a bit better. Also, I never said it was all men's fault the term has become poisoned. Some women have misogynist attitudes, and even help spread them. I'm a man who is a feminist, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't reject identity politics.

I have, unfortunately, seen enough Internet arguments to know how those things go. Fear and mistrust are too powerful. A single story about someone getting fired over saying "dongle" is worth a thousand people like you arguing what feminism "actually" is and who it's good for. Being a little more proactive about counteracting that effect can't hurt.

Again, looking at what is vs what should be, I think you're probably correct. I wrote my post to try to convince any logical, interested person who read it. I can't do anything about people being fired for whatever.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

i think it's a chicken/egg thing. i'm not quick to use the correlation word because i'm sure causation is more accurate. but which one caused the other? did civilization cause lower testosterone levels or did lower testosterone levels cause civilization? undoubtedly there is a feedback loop between the two but which came first? we'll never know.

here's how i imagine it:
there was this oddball in just about every tribe that had lower testosterone. he was different and outcast. he had to learn to live on his own without the aid of individual or group might. he used his wits. some natural disaster would strike, leaving his native tribe with insufficient resources. as the tribe spread out in search of resources, some would find this guy that was outcast. perhaps he had already formed a small tribe of his own with other outcasts. anyways, the mainstream tribe would eventually find these outcasts that were doing well. the outcasts were 'humanitarians' so they welcomed their 'brothers and sisters' and shared their resources and knowledge. thus, testosterone-heavy populations were periodically infused with knowledge and knowledge-heavy populations were periodically infused with testosterone. what really causes civilization is resource scarcity. however, i don't think most of use truly understand what 'civilization' is, because language evolves so much and the word itself was born into out language during a time in which civilization had grand delusions about itself. civilization is just a collective of human beings larger than a clan or tribe. in a sense, the words clan, tribe, and civilization are synonymous with words like byte, kilobyte, and megabyte. some would say that resource scarcity brings down civilization. this is true too. it seems like a paradox but it really isn't once you remove your grand delusions about civilization. resource scarcity can force smaller units of humans to form larger units in a collective effort to acquire resources. it can also cause larger units of humans to break down into smaller ones (diversification). the wheel keeps turning...

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

So your problem is that it isn't a scientific theory?

Here's a falsifiable statement: do a small group of elite men dominate society for their own interests? This statement is false if no group dominates society, or if a group of elite women do. Given how subjective many of these concepts are, its not as neatly falsifiable than Newton's laws, for example. Life is complicated. I find it interesting that this theory is basically what people are espousing when talking about inequality and the 1%, its just that the connection to gender isn't as obvious if you are a male. Few would deny that most of the money is in male hands.

As for what feminism actually does, I'll trust my own judgement on that thanks. The fact that you mentioned 'bra burners' is interesting as it is actually a myth. I referenced it as an example in one of my posts but I don't literally think it is something that happened.

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

1. "Improve things"? Really? There are loads of women who would love nothing more than to raise their children instead if having babysitters do it while they work and feel guilty no matter what choice they make. And for those women who feel fine about abandoning their children to "trusted strangers," How is that an improvement?! Desensitized, unloving, unnurturing mothers?? Bad families raise bad children who grow into bad adults. And when they have children (and that's happening now) they have NO idea how to raise them.

2. Not men as a category? You can't be serious. And why "certain specific men"? And why do feminists in high government leadership positions care nothing about the very REAL anti-woman things going on in other nations and instead make up nonsense about pay gaps and all of that? Study after study shows that the reasons for many gaps and limits on upper-leadership and lack of women in certain jobs (funny, they never talk about how few women do "grunt work" like mechanics, plumbing, elentrcians, HVAC, garbage collection, truck drivers and all...yes there are some, but it's overwhelmingly male) has more to do with lack of interest and/or having other/conflicting interests in life... say for example, being a mother.

There just aren't fights left to fight for "feminism." And the harm it has done to nearly all areas and aspects they have influenced is amazing. Nothing good has happened since the right to vote has been established. (Please cite examples to the contrary) And please. When have feminists EVER demanded equal responsibility to accompany their equal rights? The draft registration is STILL a sexist law and no one cares and if anyone pushed to require women to register you can bet the feminists would be the first to say "no!"

When, thanks to feminism, women have the legal right to walk away from the responsibility of motherhood. Do men? Even if they never knew or saw the child? Nope. There is a need for equality, but equality of RESPONSIBILITY is elephant of hypocrisy in the room.

Nature gives men and women role assignment by gender. Men can't nurse babies without some serious medical modifications. Any and every time "society" thinks it's smarter than nature, and that a political idealism which challenges reality, bad things result. We live in a society where more children have only one parent and either that parent (invariably a woman) is either living on child support and welfare or is working and not taking care of her children. Neglected children cannot POSSIBLY grow up well.

Is feminism really such a great idea?

1) No one is trying to force women to work who don't wish to. Economic forces are what causes that. Strawman argument of feminism.

2) Why shouldn't elected leaders in our society work to improve our society? Western women should see how bad women in other countries have it and just shut up and be grateful? Try that one out on your girlfriend or wife and see what she thinks.

3) Right, so its preposterous to think that anything could be wrong with our society. We're perfect. Even though I acknowledge women's right to vote as a positive change, the changes should definitely have stopped there. And anti-black racism in the US ended in 1964.

4) Damn society, thinking it can defy nature. We should live as cavemen did! Are you by any chance vaccinated?

5) "Is feminism really such a great idea?" Yes, read my original post if you're curious as to why I think so.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

#notallfeminists

Re:correlation, causation

[Dutch Gun]

A single story about someone getting fired over saying "dongle"

That sort of reminded me of when my sister-in-law first started working in IT. She pretty much learned everything on the job, as she had a non-technical degree and sort of accidentally fell into that field. And of course, as is typical, she's the only female in the department. She was initially surprised at the use of the terms "male" and "female" to describe cabling, plugs, and sockets, thinking the guys were having a chuckle at her expense before realizing that that was, in fact, official nomenclature.

Fortunately, she's a pretty level-headed person, gets along well with others, and isn't looking for reasons to be offended.

Re:correlation, causation

[drinkypoo]

I have trouble with pronouncements like these, because

Because you don't RTFA.

It seems like their conclusion might have a Politically Correct component. Could it be instead that civilization caused a general lowering of testosterone, because high testosterone levels were no longer vital to survival?

No, it could not. That's because you used the word "instead" when you in fact described the view which was actually put forth:

Cieri speculates that higher population densities could have triggered the shift towards lower testosterone levels, as people increasingly had to work together to succeed, and being highly aggressive became less advantageous.

That's right, the author of the paper says precisely what you want them to have said, and what you're complaining they didn't say. It's almost like they know more about this subject than you do, especially since you're willfully ignorant. Sadly, at least two moderators found your inability to read insightful.

Re:correlation, causation

[Intrepid imaginaut]

So your problem is that it isn't a scientific theory?

My problem is that it's truthy sounding nonsense claiming the imprimatur of verifiability using sciency-sounding words, and is being used to persecute large sections of the population.

Here's a falsifiable statement: do a small group of elite men dominate society for their own interests? This statement is false if no group dominates society, or if a group of elite women do. Given how subjective many of these concepts are, its not as neatly falsifiable than Newton's laws, for example. Life is complicated. I find it interesting that this theory is basically what people are espousing when talking about inequality and the 1%, its just that the connection to gender isn't as obvious if you are a male. Few would deny that most of the money is in male hands.

And you see this is where feminism falls down, extrapolating from the "personal is the political" mantra of the 70s feminists point to a few rich people as evidence that all men have oppressed all women forever, despite these few wealthy people never having acted to improve the situation or welfare of men as a class. Your mythical boys club doesn't exist. As for most of the money being in the hands of men, most of the spending power is in the hands of those poor oppressed women. But hey what's a few nuances to the blunt instrument that is feminism.

I note you haven't disputed the veracity of the description of patriarchy theory given above, nor the effects it has had when applied to real life. The Swedish model is a good one, feminists decided that criminalising the clients of sex workers was the way to go because patriarchy, right, except the end result was fewer and more violent clients. Which a five year old could have told you would be the outcome - criminalise clients and the clients will mostly be criminals. Well done feminists, leaving yet another trail of bodies and broken lives behind you, except this time it's women.

Now we can continue this two step as long as you like but the bottom line is that feminism is by its own outcomes based on a particularly hateful central premise. You're waving at the wealthy one percent while I'm talking about police departments being trained to arrest the man in all circumstances, even when he's the victim of domestic violence, which is about half the time.

I mean is this thing turned on or what.

As for what feminism actually does, I'll trust my own judgement on that thanks.

Of course, facts aren't much use to a feminist.

The fact that you mentioned 'bra burners' is interesting as it is actually a myth. I referenced it as an example in one of my posts but I don't literally think it is something that happened.

Jon Katz seems to feel otherwise but it's hardly a pivotal issue.

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

My problem is that it's truthy sounding nonsense claiming the imprimatur of verifiability using sciency-sounding words, and is being used to persecute large sections of the population.

So you accept the notion of widespread persecution, but you think its directed towards men? That is a pretty weird thing to believe in a society where the vast majority of politicians, CEOs, and wealthiest people are men. I just don't see it.

And you see this is where feminism falls down, extrapolating from the "personal is the political" mantra of the 70s feminists point to a few rich people as evidence that all men have oppressed all women forever, despite these few wealthy people never having acted to improve the situation or welfare of men as a class. Your mythical boys club doesn't exist. As for most of the money being in the hands of men, most of the spending power is in the hands of those poor oppressed women. But hey what's a few nuances to the blunt instrument that is feminism.

My original post made the exact opposite argument. The 'boys club' is not interested in helping men as a category, its a handful of selfish men (with a handful of women) pissing on everyone else. If you actually thought this is what feminists believed, no wonder you are so confused.

The spending power is normal people, not the elites. Our society has become more egalitarian over the past few decades, which I personally feel is a good development. It also makes sense in light of the many single mothers out there, and kids being pretty expensive.

I note you haven't disputed the veracity of the description of patriarchy theory given above, nor the effects it has had when applied to real life. The Swedish model is a good one, feminists decided that criminalising the clients of sex workers was the way to go because patriarchy, right, except the end result was fewer and more violent clients. Which a five year old could have told you would be the outcome - criminalise clients and the clients will mostly be criminals. Well done feminists, leaving yet another trail of bodies and broken lives behind you, except this time it's women.

I frankly don't know alot about these things, which is why I didn't bite. If you feel these are important issues, champion them yourselves, rather than sneer at other people for not doing so.

Now we can continue this two step as long as you like but the bottom line is that feminism is by its own outcomes based on a particularly hateful central premise. You're waving at the wealthy one percent while I'm talking about police departments being trained to arrest the man in all circumstances, even when he's the victim of domestic violence, which is about half the time.

I mean is this thing turned on or what.

Men are also raped about as often as women are. Again, the problem is that the windmill you are tilting at is not feminism. The world is unfair in many ways, and you would have to be a total idiot to claim that all men live like kings.

Re:correlation, causation

[Intrepid imaginaut]

So you accept the notion of widespread persecution, but you think its directed towards men? That is a pretty weird thing to believe in a society where the vast majority of politicians, CEOs, and wealthiest people are men. I just don't see it.

And you've just completely gone and discounted the Duluth model and its horrendous widespread effects while simultaneously repeating the fallacy that rich men care anything for men, and the fact the patriarchy theory is both fatally flawed and destructive.

That took some doing. Not as much as the way you directly contradict yourself next, but still pretty good.

My original post made the exact opposite argument. The 'boys club' is not interested in helping men as a category, its a handful of selfish men (with a handful of women) pissing on everyone else. If you actually thought this is what feminists believed, no wonder you are so confused.

Go read the dictionary definition of feminism. Then take a look at the Duluth model, the Swedish model, Baroness Corsten's report or even good old professor Elizabeth Sheehy who believes that women should have the right to murder men in their sleep as long as they "felt" threatened. Compare and contrast, and there's plenty more where that came from.

It also makes sense in light of the many single mothers out there, and kids being pretty expensive.

Hardly. What it means is men are earning the money then giving it to the women to spend. Patriarchy!

I frankly don't know alot about these things

Really? Maybe you should educate yourself on the actual effects of feminism in the real world before waving fungible postmodern definitions around as if they meant anything otuside a gender studies exam paper.

Men are also raped about as often as women are. Again, the problem is that the windmill you are tilting at is not feminism.

Oops.

Re:correlation, causation

[visualight]

My non-scientific opinion is that >60% of women would prefer give their full time attention to family --if they have a choice. They rarely do these days.

The other 40% really want a career. And while they may be a minority, they are a *very* vocal minority.

I think if men still had the wages they did 40 years ago there would be a lot more women that choose to be full time mothers, and this is in spite what seems to be an intentional degradation of this role by feminists.

Re:correlation, causation

[visualight]

I don't think you're entirely correct. Feminism -has- done some damage in this area.

People desire status and that is true of all genders. And while I wasn't alive 100 years ago to know with certainty, I do not believe the phrase "...just a house wife" was uttered by same in a self-deprecating tone back then. But I hear it from women on a regular basis in our times. The idea that a woman must have a successful career in order to feel pride is the *fault* of feminism.

The other four points you make seem to be against something other than GP's points. I mean of course we all want to improve society, of course *no one* is telling western women to compare their lot with Iran and gratefully shut up. And come on, central air and vaccinations aren't really on topic are they?

I think feminism ( as I see it around me ) really does have it wrong. I think they are trying to actually make men and women equal and that is a terrible idea. If feminists *really* cared about women generally and not only for themselves specifically they would be out in force correcting the economic problems that force women into the work force. Having a choice is great, and I'm all on board with it, but I truly believe that for most women the choice they really want is no longer available to them.

Re:correlation, causation

[erroneus]

Speaking as a family man who is the sole earner of the house, whose wife is a stay-at-home mom to our little boy, I can say it's a kind of a pinch to live this way. But it also highlights a lot of what we don't need in life. We have given up a LOT to live like this, but also, a vast majority of it was useless to begin with and we're better for giving it up.

Re:correlation, causation

[rtb61]

Problems with the test, the subjects desire to win to successfully complete the transaction might have led to the fair offers, rather than a desire to be fair. Testosterone might well be a much trickier hormone and a single shot is very unlikely to bring out it's full consequences. Sustained high levels which generate physiological changes to brain and body and nowhere near the same as one hit. So aggression from one shot no, however indications are that sustained high levels do significantly alter aggression levels to extremes of behaviour. Something that can not be tested due to risk however something that can be statistically analysed due to abuse within in certain sectors of activities including police and defence forces, as well as recreational body builders. Then again of course, that desire to be more muscular to be physically superior than competitors to the point of drug abuse and extremes of repetitive actions might well indicate an existing problem exacerbated by testosterone abuse.

One not on the test, what were the testosterone levels of the individuals prior to administration of the test.

Re:correlation, causation

[erroneus]

1) The political push is for getting more women into studies in school they don't want and when they can't get the numbers they want in those schools, they close the programs down. In the workplace, the same sort of numbers games are being played in a way rather similar to race baiters. And women are being "shamed" for not being successful career women. Smart women don't buy into it, but we live in a consumer society -- smart people are increasingly rare.

It's getting late... want to sleep. I think I am happy with this discussion especially as I find many like-minded people who actually see the harms our society is experiencing due to the cost [read "LOSS"] of the family and thus children which are the next workers and leaders of our nation as the years continue to count forward. We seem to be taking a LOT for granted and not the least of which is the importance of women, families and children.

We knew this decades and centuries ago. We have always sought to honor and protect women -- we called it by many names including chivalry. But some whack-job women decided it was "oppression." And as their agenda became adopted into the system, the results have been catastrophic. And if you don't agree that children are our future and that whole families are needed to raise good, strong, healthy sons and daughters, please tell me who and how our society will not become "Idiocracy" any worse than it already is? That's a serious question.

Re:correlation, causation

[jd]

Ok, now that I can agree with. I have also seen some astonishing claims by scientists - usually archaeologists operating outside of their subdomain. And, yes, I also get tired of misleading claims (regardless of who by).

Yes, the dynamics will be complex, because in a feedback loop you can't distinguish cause and effect. It's a loop. There are also many, many variables at play and we simply don't have the data to do a multi-way analysis of variance capable of proving what variables were significant. (And because slash-and-burn, agriculture and high population densities alter climate, which impacts all the different elements humanity depended on, there's multi-step loops involved and we can't be sure we know all of them or all of the other factors that are enmeshed.)

Absolutely right that correlation is not causation. If there's a strong correlation, then you can be confident of a relationship via a common system, but that's it.

The correct approach is to always try to prove a model wrong. So, in this case, the place to start would be to look at the genomes of H. Denisovia and H. Neandertal. We've evidence Neandertals were the first to paint caves, and possible evidence of sophisticated rituals and music. So if the testosterone model is correct, we aught to see testosterone levels drop in human populations that are hybrids, relative to non-hybrid humans. Otherwise, you need additional models, which violates the rule of not multiplying entities unnecessarily.

Re:correlation, causation

[Capsaicin]

Could it be instead that civilization caused a general lowering of testosterone, because high testosterone levels were no longer vital to survival?

If you follow evolutionary theory, that's the first conclusion one should reach.

The selection pressure could be directed either way. It could be, as OP opines, that civilisation mitigated against selection in favour of higher testosterone levels. But it could equally be, for instance, that the development of human intelligence and thus more effective weaponry resulted in those with a greater propensity to conflict (and assuming higher testosterone levels actually does this) selectively eliminating themselves (or each other) from the gene pool. I'm not sure which in particular is the first conclusion one should reach.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument there has no merit. Let me repeat it in reverse:

Unless you have a rational reason for WHY civilization arose then it makes alot more sense to say that "the falling testosterone levels caused civilization to rise" than it does to say tha tsome unknown force caused civilization to rise which caused testosterone levels to fall so the correct headline should read:

Ancient Skulls show Civilization Rose as Testosterone Levels Fell

(Neither version of this argument is correct; they're equivalently wrong. There is no basis for implying causality in either direction.)

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminism is the belief that women are just as capable and deserving of respect as men

Then why not just call it "Humanism". I could say the same for so many of these specialty movements. When you intentionally differentiate and create new labels to aid in differentiation, you're not at all helping with integration and equality...

Re:correlation, causation

[Areyoukiddingme]

The fact that you mentioned 'bra burners' is interesting as it is actually a myth.

Wait, what? Snopes severely overstated that one.

Bra burning was quite real. Perhaps the origin is mythological, but if that's the case, life imitated art in a hurry, and kept at it for quite some time. My mother has personal memories of protests where bras were burned at the University of Chicago, and two different family friends the same age have similar memories from other places. It was quite real. It made the nightly news. Video exists. Yes some of that video is Hollywood depictions of fictional feminists, but not all of it. Not by a long shot.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

So let's come full circle to the start of all of this: correlation and causation...

Yes, society is historically dominated by men. Not just a small group of elite men, but even among the general population. There are some men out there who actually hate women or look down on them as lesser (and that could be said of just about any two subgroups of humans in place of "men" and "women"). The question arises: is the domination of men because men hate women and actively suppress them? Feminists would like to think the answer is yes, because it gives them an easy out: men are the problem. The truth is much subtler than that. Men and women are different. There are lots of edge-cases (which are important, but not statistically!), but the bottom line is that the co-evolution of the sexes of humans placed us in different roles. Women bear children, raise them, domesticate the household and bring it into order, nurture both children and adults, and create familial bonds. Men hunt food, build physical structures, and also build management structures so that twenty men can accomplish for a societal group what twenty men could never achieve working apart from each other. They have more natural leadership ability because of this. It doesn't mean that men don't value women. The fact that women's workforce participation rates and salaries are lower (in only some fields) in spite of legal equality does not imply a causation from active suppression by men of women who can do those jobs. What it implies is that most women aren't apt at those jobs and/or have no real innate desire to do them, coupled with the fact that many women's careers are much more significantly impacted by the process of procreating the species than men's are, as would be expected, and as any rational employer would respond to appropriately.

Re:correlation, causation

[Beck_Neard]

People tend to project their own biases, but it doesn't damage the underlying scientific fact. People associate testosterone with aggressiveness, and that leads to the wrong conclusion that civilization requires people to be less aggressive. But there's no evidence to indicate that testosterone actually causes any aggressiveness at all. The main biological effects of testosterone are muscle mass and body hair (along with some other sex characteristics). So really, it's more valid to say civilization was correlated with less muscle mass. But in all honesty, it's just as valid to say civilization is correlated with less body hair.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Bear in mind that it's unlikely that lower testosterone levels would be selected for merely because "the testosterone was no longer needed..." You'd expect to see a fitness cost before that happened.

(Mind you, this is assuming the effect is happening at the level of genetic selection - testosterone could conceivably change as a response to a changing environment, for instance.)

Civilization is usually defined (loosely) as the rise of the City-State. I would argue that the testosterone decrease coincides more with the development of human social groups, which predates Civilization by a very significant amount of time. For starters, Civilization hasn't existed long enough to make any claims on evolutionary trends. But more important is that it's not Civilization itself which selects for, or against, testosterone. It's the Division of Labor within a social group. As a social place is found for a breeding male who is not highly dominant, it allows for the genes with lower testosterone levels to proliferate. And by placing the higher testosterone levels into more Dangerous social roles (warriors, hunters, etc.) you begin to see a decline in how many are able to pass along their genes.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

1) No one is trying to force women to work who don't wish to. Economic forces are what causes that. Strawman argument of feminism.

No, he has a valid point. The "economic forces" you are referring to are a result of "working mothers" entering the workforce. A single low-wage worker used to be able to raise a family, but that is no longer true. The dual-worker family created an Inflationary trend in the Economy, so that today it's very difficult for a low-income family to survive on a single income.

2) Why shouldn't elected leaders in our society work to improve our society?

Because such changes in society need to start with the people, and the law should reflect that... not the other way around. Attempting to force change through legislation (aka Legislating Morality) is extremely risky. The first question is simply whose Morality should get to be enforced? Many times what is claimed to be 'good' for society is not, and can even be quite bad.

Western women should see how bad women in other countries have it and just shut up and be grateful?

No. But you do need to acknowledge advances in society, and not act like things are as bad as they possibly can get.

5) "Is feminism really such a great idea?" Yes, read my original post if you're curious as to why I think so.

I already read it. You've still failed to address the larger problem with feminism, or any -ism related to any specific sub-group. That problem is simply that instead of working towards the explicit goal of making society a better place for everyone, you are only concerned with making it better for that one group of people. And most such movements which act in this fashion, no matter how good they start out, end up doing it not by making society better overall, but by actively depriving some other group. And in situations where they actually do achieve the goal of complete parity, it very rarely stops there, and eventually swings to a point of imbalance again.

tl;dr there is a difference between being Pro-Equality and being Pro-Female or Pro-Male.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is the problem right here: the term feminist has been poisoned intentionally. Its similar to the right-wing hit job on 'liberal'; the only way to defeat an idea that most people already accept is to reframe and demonize that idea as something objectionable."

Don't forget the tea-baggers.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

What? I don't think that's the case. Perhaps a specific geographical group of whites, but certainly not white people in general. I don't think I've ever seen the 'redneck' label applied to Nords.

Re:correlation, causation

[dave420]

And your post was a perfect example of condemning something without a shred of evidence, because it fits in with your notion that political correctness is bad. If I've not seen plenty of posts from you haranguing women for daring to be scientists, or making other, equally-ridiculous claims about various sections of the human race, I could pin it to unfortunate ignorance. However it seems like you are wilfully-ignorance, and filled with hate and anger. It's no wonder you'd jump on anything to condemn that which you perceive to call you out on your disgusting behaviour.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

... that requires men and women ...

I saw a Japanese teen anime set in space, where the men lived in one ship and women lived in a separate ship with no contact between them. Reproduction for women was easy: Splice two ovum from two women together and implant in a uterus. The men had it difficult: They had to separate X-sperm and Y-sperm, splice the X-sperm from one man with the Y-sperm from another man, then implant it into an artificial uterus.

... create artificial sperm ...

Interesting that no-one's talking about it. Sperm doesn't survive outside the human body and doesn't live long inside it. This DIY pregnancy meme will have its own set of problems.

Re:correlation, causation

[dave420]

It's actually a derogatory term for working-class white people from the south. I don't know why you are getting upset about this epithet when you are so quick to condemn women. Or are some forms of rampant discrimination OK but others are fine? It must be strange to live in your head.

Re:correlation, causation

[dave420]

Actual feminism is as much about hatred as the civil rights movement was in the 60s. You are confusing some very vocal idiots with the rest of the movement. "Feminist" is what you call someone when they think men and women should be treated equally. That's it. It's got "fem" in the name because currently women are getting the raw deal at the moment. If women were in disproportionately in control, men had lower wages, were denied opportunities, etc. then it would be called "masculism" and the end goal would be the same - equality between the sexes.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and I'll be glad to mail you a hankie. A nice pink one to go with your politics.

Re:correlation, causation

[dave420]

If only it was as easy as your "women shouldn't be scientists" post you made that one time. Clearly you are an expert on these matters!

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in the contemporary feminist society men and consequently testosterone are bad. Can't you see? Testosterone dropped, civilization began! It's such a politically correct assumption..

Re:correlation, causation

[goose-incarnated]

So you accept the notion of widespread persecution, but you think its directed towards men? That is a pretty weird thing to believe in a society where the vast majority of politicians, CEOs, and wealthiest people are men. I just don't see it.

Well, seeing as the vast majority of jailed-citizens, dangerous-get-killed-on-the-job-employees and violent-crime-victims are men, why do you believe that if there is widespread persecution, it is not against men?

Trouble is, people like you look up and see it is dominated by men and conclude that that it must be because of persecution. You never look down and see that that sphere also is widely dominated by males. You're ignoring that males dominate the extremes of every measurement that exists, both the top and the bottom.

Men dominate the geniuses while simultaneously dominating the darwin-award-winners; men are over represented in acts of valor while also being over-represented in acts of selfishness (embezzlement). Men are stray more than the median in both directions in measures of height, weight and shoe-size than women do. Doesn't mean anything.

Re:correlation, causation

[bingoUV]

Feminism is the belief that women are just as capable and deserving of respect as men

No, it cannot possibly be. Because it implies men are just as capable and deserving of respect as women. So by that logic it can be renamed as masculism.

A thought experiment proves that no feminist would accept this renaming - even though it espouses the exact same idea. The ideas "women are just as capable and deserving of respect as men" and "men are just as capable and deserving of respect as women" ARE the exact same ideas.

Re:correlation, causation

[narcc]

Otherwise, you need additional models, which violates the rule of not multiplying entities unnecessarily.

That's not a "rule".

Re:correlation, causation

[narcc]

If Feminism is about equality, why is it still only named after women?

I can offer two reasons: 1) There's no reason to change the name. 2) Men aren't being oppressed (excluding the oppression that "happens" in the imagination of MRA's)

If Feminism is really about equality, then what have Feminists ever sacrificed to help men achieve equality?

See (2) above.

Re:correlation, causation

[narcc]

There are some men out there who actually hate women or look down on them as lesser

They appear to be (at least, I hope) disproportionately represented on Slashdot.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

But that doesn't explain why you're a dick. It's the twenty-first century. Lose the dickishness. It's just as bad against random strangers on the internet as it is against people who can punch you right in the face. (There's just fewer consequences, which is why it's so hot for spineless douchebags right now.)

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminism is the belief that women are just as capable and deserving of respect as men

Feminism is basically a social criticism

Which is it? It can't be both. The first is feminism, the second is feminist theory, which has almost nothing to do with feminism for the reason you already state, which is that it's not what feminism is. Feminism is the uncontroversial idea that women are moral equals to men. Feminist theory is a far deeper and way more controversial theory for why society is supposedly constructed so that feminism doesn't just arise spontaneously by magic, and it ignores most the the simple and obvious reasons why that should be, in favour of a basically conspiratorial theory.

Keep in mind that women only gained the right to vote last century

So did men. Universal suffrage for females was about 4 years after universal suffrage for men. In any case, women gained rights because men voted for them to gain those rights, because they agreed with the basic principles of feminism. That's as far from a patriarchal society that deliberately puts women down as it's possible to get.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, you can't call yourself a feminist without embracing this theory, it's as fundamental as a belief in Christ is to Christianity.

Yes you can. I agree some feminists would have you embrace this belief or not call yourself a feminist, but that's an extreme point of view. It's more like if a bunch of Xtians said "you can't call yourself a Xtian if you don't believe in Creationism" and then you came here and said Creationism is a fundamental tenet of Xtianity. In fact, it isn't, and that you think it is shows that you're parrotting the logic of people you despise, rather than coming to your own opinion through your own logic and your own research. You might want to think about that some.

So witness the reality of what feminism actually DOES, rather than what it claims it is.

Feminism is an abstract concept. It doesn't DO anything nor does it make any claims. People do things, and some of those people do and claim things in feminism's name, but that has no meaning outside of their own self-serving propaganda. Just don't accept their propaganda. Feminism is the belief in the moral equality of men and women. That's it.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

A falsifiable statement is not the same as a statement that may or may not be false. All statements would then be falsifiable. Falsifiable means that in principle you can somehow demonstrate that it is unequivocally false. Your statement is nowhere near, it's not even well-defined.

In any case, feminist theory isn't that some men are controlling society and keeping both men and women down, it's that all men are controlling society and keeping all women down. It's not about the 1%, it's about the 49%. We could have a theory about the latter, and maybe we're moving towards that now, but feminist theory is not it.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminism is basically a social criticism that in many spheres of our society an elite group of men has taken control for their own benefit, to the exclusion of others.

Which is why men are basically seen as expendable when it comes to war and dangerous activities in general? If men are really the masters then why is it always "women and children first"? Clearly things aren't always fair but the idea that men are the winners in the battle of the sexes just doesn't hold water. I'm pretty much expected to die for my wife and children. Yes, I feel like a king here, let me tell you.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

women only gained the right to vote last century, as late as 1970 in France

Women gained the right to vote in France (at the national level) in 1944. Granted, that's later than it should've been (...is there any date that is not "later than it should have been"?), but it's not 1970. Perhaps you're thinking of Switzerland, which did not grant this right until 1971.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a falsifiable statement: do a small group of elite men dominate society for their own interests?

You're also kind of an idiot if you think you can draw a conclusion from that. Is it because they are men? Is it because they are white? Simply saying that they are men is about as useful as a wet fart.

Re:correlation, causation

[operagost]

Oh, I see. Someone calls out (the minority) of women who try to game the system, so you try to shame them into silence. Got it.

Re:correlation, causation

[walshy007]

Feminism is basically a social criticism that in many spheres of our society an elite group of men has taken control for their own benefit, to the exclusion of others. Keep in mind that women only gained the right to vote last century, as late as 1970 in France,

You don't think female privilege exists? you don't think they don't have entitlements that men do not also? Do you think it is all entirely mens fault across the board? bullshit.

To say that women have been powerless to men for thousands of years unable to have any effect upon mens wishes or politics I'd consider an argument that they are inferior. Good thing I don't think that. What they lacked in rights they made up for in entitlements.

When men were first granted the right to vote, it was conditional upon them signing up for potential military service (US here) and doing so at an age long prior to when they were allowed to vote. In world war one millions of men went to their deaths without being able to vote. In fact when the draft was challenged a court of law simply said

"It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force."

In other words, men enjoyed the rights and privileges of citizenship granted by government *because they paid for it through the reciprocal obligation of the draft.* And the court considered this bargain to be so self-evident, it need do no more than state it.

And yet a few short years later women were granted the vote, without those responsibilities, as soon as the number of women wanting the vote exceeded 50%. While only three years earlier men were being literally executed for not upholding their end of the bargain that they were unable to opt out of. For men gaining the right to vote was still a condition of their service, for women it was a freebie, no responsibility required.

Sure, women weren't allowed to make that bargain for a vote, but neither could men refuse it. Most of the women who were against women voting back then were against it because of the assumption they would be held to the same standard as males and be required to sign up for potential service.

Hell, during the war the suffragettes (women wanting to vote) took time off their campaigning to shame any man who was seen not in uniform to sign up to war. In one instance even compelling a 16 year old boy who was sent back from the trenches after being discovered how young he was to sign back up. Such is the power of women, they controlled what it was to be considered a man and through this power compel men to do their wishes in such a way that the power is deniable, to maintain an image of weakness.

When times are hard, rights tend to only be given to those that have responsibilities to others, so that they may fulfil them. Since allowing others to have rights they don't necessarily require can impede on those who do have those responsibilities.

What I see today tend to be people that want the rights without the responsibility and without losing the entitlements. Mischaracterizing the situation of the past such to tell a very one-sided story, in order to let the entitled have their cake and eat it too.

I used to think it was unfair that women weren't allowed to vote in the early 1900's, but after seeing the conditions placed under men to be able to vote, no wonder so many didn't actually want to, if it was assumed they would have the same responsibilities and lose their entitlements (which they did not).

Within practical limits and within the confines of what is safe, women are given what they want. Men have no automatic own group preference unlike women. Partly why the idea of men "holding all the power" is ridiculous when they ar

Re:correlation, causation

[operagost]

I stopped reading when you used the phrase "settled science". Science is never settled. Our understanding is always flawed. "Settled" is a political term used to silence dissenters.

Re:correlation, causation

[walshy007]

2) Men aren't being oppressed

To say that no man or group of men has ever been treated unjustly (oppressed) is a really hard sell man.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll find that the "male" parts tend to have a plug. And the "female" parts tend to have a socket that the plug fits in.

So the naming is really fucking obvious.

Re:correlation, causation

[walshy007]

do a small group of elite men dominate society for their own interests?

What if they see "giving women what they say they want" as part of their interests?

Some interesting reading from the past (1907) here.

Let us first take our existing marriage laws. We shall find that in England whilst the woman is practically relieved of all responsibility for the maintenance of her husband, he can be compelled by poor law to maintain her under a penalty of three months’ hard labour for leaving her without provision, should she choose to apply to the parish. On anything that by latitude of interpretation can be deemed ill-usage or neglect, she can, if rich, obtain judicial separation with alimony from the divorce court, or, if poor, a magisterial order for separation with weekly maintenance from the police court.

Jackson versus Jackson has decided that a wife can leave her husband at will, that he cannot raise a finger to compel her to remain with him or to come back, neither can she be imprisoned for contempt of court for refusing to obey an order for restitution of conjugal rights; in other words, it is decided that the contract of marriage is the single case of a contract which one of the contracting parties is at liberty to break without reason given, and without compensating the other party. But it is well to remember that it is only one of the parties that has this liberty, for Bunhill versus Bunhill gives the wife the right to follow an absconding husband and break into his house, if necessary, for the purpose of compelling cohabitation. He, on his part, is precluded by the decision in Weldon versus Weldon from obtaining restitution of conjugal rights even by way of action; he is liable, however, for his wife’s postnuptial torts, so that she has only to slander or libel some person without his knowledge or consent, and whilst she comes off scot free, even though possessed of property, the husband can be cast in damages. Trespass to land, trespass to goods, injuries done through negligence, all these actions coming under the legal definition of “torts,” render the husband liable, no matter what private wealth the wife may possess.

Turning now from the civil law to the criminal law, we find a similar – or even greater – disparity of treatment. From the beginning of the nineteenth century, of course, whilst flogging, the tread-mill, and other brutal forms of punishment have been retained for male offenders, they have been abolished for females, so that though a man may be subjected to torture and degradation for mere breaches of prison discipline, a woman is exempted from them for the most heinous crimes.

As happened a few years ago in Ireland, a woman may torture her children to death and there is no outcry for the lash, yet surely if you do not flog the female child-torturer you have no right to flog any other human being. The sex-favouritism of modern penal law is made more conspicuous by the ever-recurring howl of the “base, bloody, and brutal” grand juror for the lash to be applied to new classes of offences (for men of course). But the most atrocious instances of sex-privilege occur in connection with the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. Whilst the abduction of a girl under eighteen, or the seduction of one under sixteen, involves the man concerned in serious penalties, the girl or the woman gets off scot free, and this even though she may have been the inciting party.

This is carried to the extent that a young boy of fourteen may be himself induced to commit a sexual offence by a girl just under sixteen – that is to say, nearly two years his senior – and he can be sentenced to imprisonment, followed by several years in a reformatory, whilst the law holds the inciting girl abs

Re:correlation, causation

[Rich0]

Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum.

I'd think that you could only study the effects of testosterone on behavior in an accurate way by modifying levels starting at conception. It is possible that elevated testosterone levels during development cause different behaviors than simply giving an adult a shot of testosterone. The brain of an adult is fully-developed already. Of course, no ethics panel would ever let you run such an experiment.

This kind of study seems like giving a shot of growth hormone to a 40 year old and concluding that growth hormones don't have any effects.

Re:correlation, causation

[narcc]

Well, that's certainly a unique interpretation...

Re:correlation, causation

[walshy007]

Unrelated to the thread at hand, apologies I didn't see it earlier as this very much is the kind of thing I'd chime in on especially in regards to feminists very skewed ideas of history.

Would just like swing you something nice to read that may take your interest, shows how little some things have changed.

Very little to do with the site it comes from, it's well written. here

A small excerpt from towards the end of the piece:

Nowadays any one who protests against injustice to men in the interests of women is either abused as an unfeeling brute or sneered at as a crank. Perhaps in that day of a future society, my protest may be unearthed by some enterprising archaeological inquirer, and used as evidence that the question was already burning at the end of the nineteenth century. Now, this would certainly not be quite true, since I am well aware that most are either hostile or indifferent to the views set forth here on this question. In conclusion, I may say that I do not flatter myself that I am going to convert many of my readers from their darling belief in “woman the victim.” I know their will is in question here, that they have made up their minds to hold one view and one only, through thick and thin, and hence that in the teeth of all the canons of evidence they would employ in other matters, most of them will continue canting on upon the orthodox lines, ferreting out the twentieth case that presents an apparent harshness to woman, and ignoring the nineteen of real injustice to man;

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

... What if they see "giving women what they say they want" as part of their interests?...

You're looking at the past with rose-coloured glasses. You think the sexism in society was more than fair? That's your opinion. Some women felt it wasn't, and decided to try to change things for the better. These people were called feminists.

Frankly, I feel these women had a better understanding of their place in society than your idealized, nostalgic point of view.

Re:correlation, causation

[walshy007]

Oppression: prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.

This also may take your interest, from the past.

Let us first take our existing marriage laws. We shall find that in England whilst the woman is practically relieved of all responsibility for the maintenance of her husband, he can be compelled by poor law to maintain her under a penalty of three months’ hard labour for leaving her without provision, should she choose to apply to the parish. On anything that by latitude of interpretation can be deemed ill-usage or neglect, she can, if rich, obtain judicial separation with alimony from the divorce court, or, if poor, a magisterial order for separation with weekly maintenance from the police court.

Jackson versus Jackson has decided that a wife can leave her husband at will, that he cannot raise a finger to compel her to remain with him or to come back, neither can she be imprisoned for contempt of court for refusing to obey an order for restitution of conjugal rights; in other words, it is decided that the contract of marriage is the single case of a contract which one of the contracting parties is at liberty to break without reason given, and without compensating the other party. But it is well to remember that it is only one of the parties that has this liberty, for Bunhill versus Bunhill gives the wife the right to follow an absconding husband and break into his house, if necessary, for the purpose of compelling cohabitation. He, on his part, is precluded by the decision in Weldon versus Weldon from obtaining restitution of conjugal rights even by way of action; he is liable, however, for his wife’s postnuptial torts, so that she has only to slander or libel some person without his knowledge or consent, and whilst she comes off scot free, even though possessed of property, the husband can be cast in damages. Trespass to land, trespass to goods, injuries done through negligence, all these actions coming under the legal definition of “torts,” render the husband liable, no matter what private wealth the wife may possess.

Is the ability for a woman to put a man in jail effectively at her whim if he is not sufficiently wealthy not injust? Would you consider it a form of oppression, or not?

I can give modern examples, actually far worse ones for men where the women are literally holding the power to end their lives with impunity.

But I'm wondering what you consider oppression first.

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

This Duluth model is your personal bugaboo, so you'll have to explain to me what it is and why I should care.

Also, I told you that only a complete idiot would believe that rich elite men care for other men. I'm not sure how to be more clear on this. Read my original post.

Re:correlation, causation

[walshy007]

And I think the majority of women back then (who were _not_ feminists) had a better idea.

Women weren't granted the vote until over 50% of the women _wanted_ the vote. To say that it was unfair before then is to say that those women who didn't want to vote were wrong, in which case you are telling women what they should want.

I actually did a rather lengthy post on that topic somewhere else in this thread.

You are looking at things through a great deal of distortion today. Women have always been favoured (see the women are wonderful effect which feminism uses to it's ends), but being favoured has had different sets of trade-offs at different periods.

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

I don't think you're entirely correct. Feminism -has- done some damage in this area.

People desire status and that is true of all genders. And while I wasn't alive 100 years ago to know with certainty, I do not believe the phrase "...just a house wife" was uttered by same in a self-deprecating tone back then. But I hear it from women on a regular basis in our times. The idea that a woman must have a successful career in order to feel pride is the *fault* of feminism.

Not really, men are subject to the same expectation. I think its natural that as women are able to have careers the same pressures are put on them as men, but I don't see how you could blame feminism for this. Feminists aren't automatically at fault for every problem in our society.

The other four points you make seem to be against something other than GP's points. I mean of course we all want to improve society, of course *no one* is telling western women to compare their lot with Iran and gratefully shut up. And come on, central air and vaccinations aren't really on topic are they?

The post I responded too seemed to say exactly that, that trying to improve women's status in our Western countries was vain when women are treated worse elsewhere. This is like calling the people who run your city's water supply jackasses, because so many people in Africa have no clean water, and they're obsessed with mineral content, chlorination, etc.

I think feminism ( as I see it around me ) really does have it wrong. I think they are trying to actually make men and women equal and that is a terrible idea. If feminists *really* cared about women generally and not only for themselves specifically they would be out in force correcting the economic problems that force women into the work force. Having a choice is great, and I'm all on board with it, but I truly believe that for most women the choice they really want is no longer available to them.

Why is it feminists specifically who have to make our economy more fair? Its everyone responsibility, and in my experience many feminists do argue in favour of a more fair economy.

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

Implicit in feminism is the realization that we live in a male-dominated society, not a female-dominated one. In your hypothetical female-dominated society I'm sure there would be something called masculinism. I think you could put both those ideas under the umbrella of humanism, which puts humans and their well-being at the centre of our moral universe.

As a matter of fact, humans used to live in matriarchal societies in pre-literate times: Google "The Alphabet vs The Goddess".

Re:correlation, causation

[Teun]

Yes I understand your point.

When I use the word sociable I think of people finding strength in doing things together and that often makes for a stronger system than individuals doing their own thing.

When the results are good I can admire both ways, the strong individual and the group that worked together but I also try to recognise which trait is stronger in individuals that I have to deal with.

Consider my use of the term 'redneck' as in this light it's a low hanging fruit for individuals that have great appreciation for individual strengths and less aptitude to work together with those outside of their circle, there is nothing racist about it.

But I wouldn't go as far as you do to split between on one side the Real Men and the effete lot on the other side, I feel you over estimate both :).

Re:correlation, causation

[narcc]

Yeah, because when I said "men aren't being oppressed" I meant "No man, ever". Honestly, what's wrong with you?

Are you really this thick or just that deluded? Try thinking before spouting your MRA talking points.

Re:correlation, causation

[walshy007]

The scary thing is you think that women have been powerless victims for millennia completely unable to have any effect on society or men until an eyeblink ago.

You must think women are pretty inferior to men to maintain that belief.. because how else would that situation have been maintained?

When it comes to people sense of agency, agents are capable of making decisions that affect the outcome of things, and things simply happen to objects.

To say that women are unable to have control over their situation (as you do when you paint them the victim) is to objectify them.

It is often in this way that feminists are the biggest objectifiers of women that I know.

Re:correlation, causation

[bingoUV]

Implicit in feminism is the realization that we live in a male-dominated society, not a female-dominated one

So you are saying that feminism is not "the belief that women are just as capable and deserving of respect as men". But according to you, feminism is, instead, a belief that we live in a male-dominated society along with the belief that women are just as capable and deserving of respect as men. You intentionally hid this important fact to promote feminism as an equitable belief system, and not poisoned. But since I pointed out the contradiction in your definition, the lid is blown. How do you avoid to accept now that feminism, is indeed poisoned as claimed by the earlier post.

Secondly - "the realization that we live in a male-dominated society, not a female-dominated one". This is a highly childish statement with an implicit assumption that society is either male-dominated, or female dominated. This implicit assumption is false. Some people dominate others, of either sex.

In your hypothetical female-dominated society

I did not hypothesize any female-dominated society.

I think you could put both those ideas under the umbrella of humanism, which puts humans and their well-being at the centre of our moral universe.

If you called it humanism, which is much less poisoned, the original poster wouldn't have claimed it poisoned and I wouldn't have needed to expose your facade.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

I know some people that pride themselves in being called "redneck." But if you call them a "hillbilly," it would serve you well to start running as they reach for their guns.

Re:correlation, causation

[a_mari_usque_ad_mare]

I mentioned those two exact things in my original post, that feminism is a belief in equality coupled with a social criticism that our society is not equal.

You're drunk dude, go home.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how you softly and effeminately disparage "educated" people while at the same time attempting to appear as such. Which are you, an educated pansy boi or a stupid bullet catcher? Live in the dichotomy you've created!

Re:correlation, causation

[bingoUV]

Society cannot be "equal". Males cannot get pregnant. Females cannot successfully mate with multiple partners per mating season. These essential limitations, and many more differences make it impossible for a society to be "equal".

Re:correlation, causation

[__aaacif3008]

Re:correlation, causation

[KamikazeSquid]

If high testosterone was simply "no longer vital," then low testosterone levels wouldn't be selected for by the process of evolution. If an organism's trait has neither a positive or negative effect on the organism's survival, the trait will generally persist. The fact that testosterone levels dropped at all indicates that a lower testosterone level provided an advantage over a higher one.

I would, however, want to know more about the effects of environmental conditions on testosterone levels. Would a change in diet, for example, trigger a change in testosterone level?

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't see how that is aggression, you should probably go back to middle school and be more socially active with your peers.

Re:correlation, causation

[KamikazeSquid]

Calling someone a "redneck" sounds more like classism than racism to me. Which is still bad, but don't conflate the two.

If you want to get really particular, it isn't actually possible to be "racist against white people" if you subscribe to the definition of racism as power + prejudice. In other words, you can't be "racist against white people" in the United States because "racism" requires the application of power at a wide-spread, institutional level. There are no institutions within the United States which are systematically biased against white people. You can be "prejudiced" against white people, but you can't be "racist" towards them. Calling it racism actually minimizes the severity of the systematic, institution discrimination that people of color have to struggle against within this country.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mythical boys club doesn't exist.

Wow, your ignorance knows absolutely no bounds. I suspect you are victim of right wing propaganda, my child.

Re:correlation, causation

[Teun]

It's a term for -some- whites.

And as you might have noticed some see it as a positive label, I didn't express an opinion at all, just an observation.

It's possibly those high on testosterone who seem to have a problem comprehending my observation.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the problem with a vague memory, such as yours. The issue is not the causality. The issue is correlation. It could be that lower testosterone led to better behavior. It could be that the high testosterone persons killed themselves off. It could be many things. The point is that this hypothesis posits a relationship.

Re:correlation, causation

[micahraleigh]

"the beanpoles require less food per person per winter"

I highly doubt civilizations have ever risen and fallen based on the amount of food they consume.

If it's happened, it's probably because the setting was at an extreme tipping point and, like a butterfly's wings "causing" weather pattern changes on the other side of the planet a civilization is "caused" to fall ... but with more obvious causes at hand (fronts, el nino, etc).

I majorly increased my metabolism in the last year and it hasn't made a noticeable difference in my food budget. If anything it's dropped (again due to a more salient factor: in this case shopping at Walmart).

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there are plenty of rednecks in the North.

Re:correlation, causation

[Vitriol Angst]

Other than a few Socialist countries -- what country thrives on truth? A Half truth is often Patriotism when a full fledged Lie would prove better.

Sure, you can say "results in violence" because the French did away with some crooked royals once, but there was quite a long run of "lying our asses off". You think the cult to stack rocks in Egypt was anything but a "keep people busy" program?

Political Correctness can be annoying -- but it used to be called "Polite" -- only now it extends to people outside of the Privileged class. The main problem I have with Political Correctness is to try and bend over backwards to create euphemisms. Retarded kids get called challenged, and then special and then alternative or whatever because as soon as everyone knows "Exceptional" stands for "Retarded" it's a slur.

But it doesn't seem to be THAT huge of an issue. It's just a problem for people who would rather talk like Archie Bunker and someone in HR is spoiling their fun. You know what drives Political Correctness? Lawsuits. Not so much angry feminists burning bras.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it be instead that civilization caused a general lowering of testosterone, because high testosterone levels were no longer vital to survival?

The author of the study specifically says that it was 'living in larger communities' (civilization) which triggered the lowering of testosterone levels as, 'being highly aggressive became less advantageous.' So, you're saying that his conclusion is PC, because instead of 'living in larger communities caused a lowering of testosterone, because high levels were not advantageous', he should have said that, 'civilisation caused a lowering of testosterone, because high levels were no longer needed' ... you should know by now that this is slashdot and only RTFS will give you a different spin than RTFA.

Re:correlation, causation

[romons]

Hmmm. Here is an article that seems to assert the opposite. It is newer (2012 vs 2009 for your link.)

Here is another article, that suggests that testosterone actually affects dominance, which makes more sense, and supports the original article.

Re:correlation, causation

[romons]

This isn't how evolution works. It doesn't work on groups, it works on individuals. So, unless high-T folks got less food than they needed, and thus did not reproduce as often, high-T-ism would not decrease in the population.

If it is true that high testosterone increases one's ability to compete for food and mates (which it does) then it should increase over all, since the high-T guys would reproduce more often.

So, having testosterone levels drop suddenly is a puzzle. There was probably some unrelated mutation that conferred a benefit, like disease resistance, that swept through the population, and that had low-T as a side effect. That would have allowed the small groups to coalesce into larger groups, due to lowered levels of competition.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is a perfect example why political correctness is such a detriment to the free world. A society that increasingly cannot accept truth eventually succumbs to it, usually violently.

Put another way: what makes you think people aren't spreading PC intentionally, to destroy and weaken "the free world" ?

Sure, there may be occasional people just repeating what they are told without knowing, but I would not assume others are unaware of your conclusion and not acting on it deliberately.

Re:correlation, causation

[Anonymous Coward]

So, while increased testosterone is more sexually attractive

What makes you think so? Do heterosexual men prefer bearded women?

Re:correlation, causation

[Kielistic]

Feminism has only been poisoned by itself. Hit jobs were never needed. You cannot go anywhere that there is feminists without finding a bunch saying moronic and completely hateful things.

Feminism is the belief that women are just as capable and deserving of respect as men.

Corollary: Feminism is the belief that women are denied respect and men oppress them.

Unless you believe women deserve less respect or fewer opportunities, simply for being female, congratulations, you are a feminist.

Leave these lame slogans to Twitter. "Do you believe in fiscal responsibility? Congratulations! You are a conservative." I think we can both agree that's a pretty stupid thing to say. Feminism is the base belief that women are oppressed for being women which leaves men as oppressors.

or whatever other stupid idea you have been taught feminists believe, these are categorically not feminism.

I was taught what feminists believe by feminists themselves. How do you think a "feminist" would react to a man telling her that she's not a "real" feminist? You even provide many insights.

Feminism is basically a social criticism that in many spheres of our society an elite group of men has taken control for their own benefit, to the exclusion of others.

Those men usually have women in their lives that benefit quite well and happily encourage those men to get them more. But feminism believes strongly that women take no part in any ills of society. This nonsense is more often used as "proof" of "male privilege" from feminists than anything else.

Aspiring to equality with men is a terrible mistake, since men live and work in a frighteningly unfree and tyrannical society, one built on confederacies and conspiracies, on initiation and blooding rituals, on shared antisocial behaviour, on ostracisms and punishments, practical jokes, clannishness and discrimination.

Your Greer quote is exactly why people see feminism as hateful. That is hate rhetoric. Purposefully painting a group as inferior, "antisocial" and all-around bad. I swear you could do a find-and-replace on "Jew" in Mein Kampf and replace is with "man" and feminists would eat it up.

Re:correlation, causation

[alexgieg]

You're taking your first world, society of plenty as the parameter, when it isn't. As near as the 19th century, before the advances in food production, food consumption accounted for 80% or more of one's salary, and that's considering a very advanced civilization. Imagine what a not-so-advanced one would be like? Or, even worse, pre-agricultural ones? Traditional food production (not to mention hunting-gathering) techniques are extremely ineffective.

Thus anything that provided for less energy consumption, including the fact your muscles deflate very fast once you stop doing exercises (strong muscles consume more energy), and that eating even small amounts can build up to obesity, comes down to an actual, evolutionarily-sound reason of saving as much energy as possible. Ancient environments are quite energy poor, and nature selected for that.

Re:correlation, causation

[wierd_w]

your understanding of the role testosterone plays in female sex drive is clearly lacking.

http://www.webmd.com/women/tes...

Re:correlation, causation

[wierd_w]

More along the lines of "High T people, with their greater rest-energy requirements, spent more of their time working for food to sock away to avoid starvation, where their Low T peers required less, for the same effort invested, and could carry a larger surplus, and thus provide better for offspring.

If you also make some wild leaps (not advisable, but meh), you could see how a society transitioning away from hunter-gatherer toward agrarian would have the "strong providers" leaving the settlement every day to go and hunt, leaving the beanpoles behind. This places the beanpoles at a greater opportunity for reproductive activity.

The agricultural advance enables this to happen; nature does the rest.

Re:correlation, causation

[oblivionboy]

No, what you've done in going in the other direction of un-"poisoning" feminism is to commit the same crime. Feminism is not ONLY what you say it is -- a light philosophical statement of social equality -- especially:

"Unless you believe women deserve less respect or fewer opportunities, simply for being female, congratulations, you are a feminist. "

In fact that part of it is a very SMALL part of it. And I'm sure you don't believe thats all it is, just as I don't. Its OBVIOUS to almost anyone on the street that this is not what feminism is only about. Feminism is an umbrella term from a myriad of things relating to female status, experience and political power in society, many of which move well beyond your above statement. Not only is it not as simple as this, but there are many factions of it that are antagonistic towards men -- that move politically and when possible legally -- and that do NOT believe in having equal social and egalitarian relationships with men.

Thus its not surprising that parts of it would be very WELLl described as poisonous -- and rightly so -- if you consider the objective here to be positive and equal collaboration between both genders for the betterment of humanity in total.

Re:correlation, causation

[VisceralLogic]

Actual feminism is as much about hatred as the civil rights movement was in the 60s. You are confusing some very vocal idiots with the rest of the movement. "Feminist" is what you call someone when they think men and women should be treated equally. That's it. It's got "fem" in the name because currently women are getting the raw deal at the moment. If women were in disproportionately in control, men had lower wages, were denied opportunities, etc. then it would be called "masculism" and the end goal would be the same - equality between the sexes.

If it's about equality, why isn't it called "egalitarianism"?

Re:correlation, causation

[ybanrab]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

It means that in a domestic conflict you'd be regarded as the perpetrator because you're male (and a member of the 'patriarchy'). It's a problem because domestic violence is actually close to gender symmetrical and male victims are ignored (women start most conflicts, men do more damage, women use weapons more often). It's a problem because male victims receive no support. It's a problem because it contributes to an imbalanced societal view of domestic violence and gender interrelations.

Please check if you self label as male feminist because you understand it as utopian socialist dogmatic ideology or if you self label as feminist because you've read propaganda from one side only and you like to compete with other men in a direction you believe women desire.

http://womenagainstfeminism.tu...

Re:correlation, causation

[ybanrab]

The Curious Case of Country C, Grant Brown

http://youtu.be/eA8djGrsttA

Injustice is ubiquitous in this world. Heaven knows there is enough of it in Canada that we do not have to look abroad to fill newspapers with alarming stories of discrimination and oppression. Still, we might learn something about how a blind eye is turned to injustice by considering the case of a relatively minor country--call it Country C--which, amazingly, ranks favourably in United Nations reports.

Country C contains two groups, the majority Xs and the minority Ys. In spite of what the UN says, the standard social indicators suggest that the Ys are an oppressed minority. Among other things, oppressed people tend to experience poorer health, more violent victimization and aggression, discrimination in the administration of justice and in employment, and disadvantage in educational attainment. The following is a brief indication how the Ys fare in these respects, relative to the Xs.

The infant-mortality rate among Ys is higher than that among Xs. Ys are also more prone to alcoholism, drug abuse, and a host of psychological problems. Adding insult to injury, a highly disproportionate amount of public health-care money is spent on Xs. About twice as much medical-research money is spent on illnesses experienced almost exclusively by Xs, than on those experienced almost exclusively by Ys. In the final analysis, the life expectancy of Xs is seven years longer than that of Ys.

In Country C, Ys are a particularly brutalized group. Most violence committed by Ys is directed at Ys themselves; whereas most violence committed by Xs is also directed at Ys. Overall, Ys are twice as likely to be victims of violence, and three times as likely to be murdered, compared to Xs. Yet the mainstream media of Country C devote a hugely disproportionate amount of their coverage to the violent victimization of Xs, especially that perpetrated by Ys. Government commissions have been set up to look into the problem of violence against Xs, but not into the much larger problem of violence against Ys.

Ys are about nine times more likely than Xs to spend time in prison. Besides the harsher social conditions that tend to make violence a part of the Y culture, this difference is due in part to the fact that the law in Country C treats violent Xs differently from violent Ys. Ys are more likely than Xs to be investigated, charged, and convicted for similar crimes on similar evidence; Xs are more likely to be believed innocent, given favourable plea bargains, and awarded probation--even when participating together in the same crime with Ys. In violent conflicts between Xs and Ys, it is standard police procedure to haul the Ys off to jail even before establishing who was at fault or who was the aggressor. Perhaps most alarmingly of all, the law of Country C recognizes several excuses for Xs to kill Ys, with no parallels for Ys who kill Xs. In a large number of cases, Xs who kill Ys serve no time at all in prison.

Although a minority of the general population, Ys account for about 85 per cent of the homeless adults in Country C. It has been estimated that as many as half of these street people have been displaced from their homes by angry or violent Xs. Public money is spent on subsidized housing and shelters for needy Xs, much of it to the exclusion of equally needy Ys. (Public housing for Ys takes the form of jail cells.)

The education system, although officially integrated, nevertheless systematically favours the Xs. Especially in the early grades, when life-long attitudes toward scholastic achievement are formed, the distinctive needs and interests of Ys are ignored or trampled on. Few Ys have teacher training at the primary level, leaving young Ys without positive role models. As a result, the grades attained by Xs are, on average, higher than those attained by Ys throughout their school years; and Ys also have higher failure and drop-out rates than Xs at every le

Re:correlation, causation

[micahraleigh]

You make some persuasive points, but I'm not totally convinced just yet.

I wonder at all the opulence in the ancient world (the Colossus, the great pyramid, the continual philandering of places like Pompeii, Sodom, etc) that people didn't have to work so much for food in some places.

Also most of the ancient empires seemed to fall when they were taken over militarily by other civilizations. Assyria, Mongolia, Medo-Persia, the Huns, the Goths, the Vikings, Rome, etc. I'm guessing the conquerors weren't bean poles.

Re:correlation, causation

[epyT-R]

...and you are purposely misrespresenting what I said in those posts. I believe that's a strawman fallacy. I've never said nor implied that women shouldn't be scientists. I did say they should have to run the same gauntlets men have to in order to receive the same reward/respect/degree/salary/raise/promotion/funding etc.

Yet more feminist propaganda.

[Anonymous Coward]

Will these man-haters ever shut up?

Re:Yet more feminist propaganda.

[war4peace]

Females also secrete testosterone.

Oblig: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

Re:Yet more feminist propaganda.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but only when we do something about it eventually. I guess it's time.

Re:Yet more feminist propaganda.

[Mr D from 63]

Maybe it was the reduction of female testosterone that made men want to breed more?

Re:Yet more feminist propaganda.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the horny ones secrete more of it (look for mustache...)

Re:Yet more feminist propaganda.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah that makes sense... I had a friend who was a slave to sex. He ended up marrying a girl who was clearly sprouting the beginnings of a mustache from time to time.

Re:Yet more feminist propaganda.

[Anonymous Coward]

And women have progesterone, which is what makes them so C-R-A-Z-Y at certain times of the month.

Re:Yet more feminist propaganda.

[Anonymous Coward]

this

Re:Yet more feminist propaganda.

[hooiberg]

Wantint to breed give rise to higher degree of civilisation in what way, exactly? The people that breed a lot tend not to be part of the civilised part of society.

Explains the explosion of leftists on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

A flourishing colony of low-testosterone pansies enforcing "civilized group-think" on a variety of topics important to Obamunist sycophants does not an advanced civilization make.

Re:Explains the explosion of leftists on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

"Leftism" is not what you seem to think it is, but I wouldn't expect a holier-than-thou gun-loving wingnut Rightist to understand.

Re: Explains the explosion of leftists on Slashdot

[alen]

More like super advanced pansies practicing war and genocide from their keyboards and automated killing machines as they drink their sugar water without any guilt

Re:Explains the explosion of leftists on Slashdot

[erroneus]

Enforcement presently requires enforcers who are pretty brutal. There's a lot of yin-yang which people only want to see one-half of.

Re:Explains the explosion of leftists on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up up up!!!

Re:Explains the explosion of leftists on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

It absolutely is what we think it is. Low-testosterone pansies...check. Enforcing group-think...check. No dissent on topics important to Obamunist syncophants (i.e. gay marriage, having the government pay for rich women's birth control, opposing voter ID in opposition to the rest of the civilized world)...check. That description fits leftists (the vast majority of Slashdot posters) to a tee.

Re:Explains the explosion of leftists on Slashdot

[jedidiah]

Government paying for birth control? I thought that was about corporations being "forced" to pay for birth control. Although that was all about corporations being "forced" to allow the employees to spend the money in question.

The government paying for birth control in general is not such a bad idea. The poor ones might actually use it and breed less poverty.

You would think that Republicans would be all about shrinking the welfare rolls and doing pretty much anything to do it, even kicking fundies to the curb in the process.

Re: Explains the explosion of leftists on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel guilty. So I have to be innocent I think.

Re:Explains the explosion of leftists on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

What an odd fantasy world you live in. Being left-of-center simply implies that you are more socially-minded in your policies. It does not mean that you throw both caution and money to the wind, any more than having some testosterone makes you an aggressive slavering animal.

In fact the policies you mention actually concern true leftists, because they are the ones who actually study concepts like groupthink, voter suppression, and other social issues. People who are right-leaning tend to value studies about work efficiency, conservative fiscal policy, and "traditional values", not scientific social studies.

People who are anti-left seem to just blindly use "leftist" as a blanket slur for all the things they think are wrong in politics, and seem curiously USA-centric, using terms like Obamunist and forgetting that the rest of the civilized world tends to be far more left-leaning than the USA to begin with.

But whatever, a funny troll is a funny troll. And if you're not trolling then there's really no point in arguing with you, because you clearly have the same self-motivated tunnel vision that plagues all the flakes of any political extreme.

Re:Explains the explosion of leftists on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Im right handed

Re:Explains the explosion of leftists on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Little pansie, you are evidence of the OP's point!

Re:Explains the explosion of leftists on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

You would think that Republicans would be all about shrinking the welfare rolls and doing pretty much anything to do it, even kicking fundies to the curb in the process.

Lately it seems like they're maybe starting to get a clue. There has been some rumbling about their message and dialing it back a bit.

Re:Explains the explosion of leftists on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit projecting. You're indicative of low intellect types tossing names and giving away their own insecurities.

Re:Explains the explosion of leftists on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean "mod me up"? You're transparent & it has to be your favorite color. You did the same here when I told you this http://science.slashdot.org/co... showing us YOU are a pansy, pusscake.

Social Engineering?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like the biggest cause for the drop would be people realizing that their biggest baddest brutes, were seriously poor negotiators. Sending in the little guy because he was less threatening would make sense. Over time, less threatening males were necessary more and more often.

Re:Social Engineering?

[Teun]

Have a look around, it's the dumber women with their testosterone bucks that cause teen pregnacy and their offspring has a documented disadvantage in modern society.

So I'd say historically the smart women who knew how to pick a father have born smarter children that became the next generation of leaders, something modern civil society is even furthering.

Re:Social Engineering?

[phantomfive]

That doesn't seem to match my reading of history......where for years and years, the bigger guys were respected and admired. See Beowolf, Epic of Gilgamesh, etc for a couple examples

Re:Social Engineering?

[Iamthecheese]

Testosterone and violence are not correlated.

Re:Social Engineering?

[Savantissimo]

Alcohol, at least with heavy, chronic consumption lowers testosterone, so maybe that is the mechanism here. It wasn't that they were civilized that made them less masculine in looks, rather that they were sots.

Re:Social Engineering?

[satuon]

People didn't live alone before agriculture. Even hunter-gatherers lived in tribes.

Re:Social Engineering?

[Nephandus]

Humans evolved in bands not tribes.

Re:Social Engineering?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if you read into evolutionary psychology at all the woman who knows how to rope the dumb farmer into paying for someone else's kids.

Let's Define Success

[avgjoe62]

"Whatever the cause, reduced testosterone levels enabled increasingly social people to better learn from and cooperate with each other, allowing the acceleration of cultural and technological innovation that is the hallmark of modern human success," says University of Utah biology graduate student Robert Cieri.

The Peaceful Middle East

The newest country on Earth

Civil society in the West

I am not a pessimist, but I will say that we are a far cry from being a "success".

Re:Let's Define Success

[mspohr]

Anecdotal reports are worthless.
A more thorough review of this issue is in the latest book by Jared Diamond "The World Until Yesterday" where he systematically studies the different stages in the evolution of society and shows a progression to less violence and more cooperation.

Re:Let's Define Success

[Anonymous Coward]

You are simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Violence has been falling dramatically across all of recorded history. Read "Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker, and until you do, you'd be wise to not reveal your ignorance about this in public.

Re:Let's Define Success

[drgs]

A politically incorrect comment to the second link: Black people have on average 15% higher testosterone http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Re:Let's Define Success

[avgjoe62]

I didn't say that violence was rising. I didn't say we were worse off now than earlier. All I said was that we had better define what we mean by "Success" in the context of what I quoted.

I really doubt that anyone living in just the three events I linked to would be comforted by the fact that the world as a whole is now a better place to live. They would certainly not think they were living in a world that demonstrates "...the acceleration of cultural and technological innovation that is the hallmark of modern human success".

So where do we set the goalposts? How do we define "success" in creating a more cooperative and less violent culture? That is what I want to know when I look out at the world as it is now. Yes, it is a better place but I think it is far from a success when we still have nations using force to solve their problems. I suppose for me the definition of success would be an end to war and I think we are very, very far away from that.

Re:Let's Define Success

[dave420]

No, that study says that "a sample of college students in LA showed the black students had a ~15% higher level of testosterone". "Political correctness" simply means being accurate in what you say, so yes, it is "politically incorrect" to state that black people have ~15% higher testosterone after reading that paper, as that's not what it says. I know it's more work to try to be correct, but when you're more correct, you are more accurate, and everyone benefits.

Coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously don't understand how they can measure the level of testosterone from 50,000 years ago. Was it recorded with fine detail? Hell, did they know it existed?

Anyway. The lower testosterone levels could be a coincidence that arose at the same time humans discovered the benefits of empathy, which is essential in group negotiations and community support.

Re:Coincidence

[ColdWetDog]

I seriously don't understand how they can measure the level of testosterone from 50,000 years ago. Was it recorded with fine detail? Hell, did they know it existed?

Anyway. The lower testosterone levels could be a coincidence that arose at the same time humans discovered the benefits of empathy, which is essential in group negotiations and community support.

They didn't. Here is their logic train:

- They measured facial characteristics, some of these characteristics have been associated with aggression (not testosterone levels).
- There are studies that link aggression with testosterone.
- Therefore, early humans had large degrees of aggression and therefore testosterone.
- Modern human skulls have fewer / less of the linked facial features, therefore our testosterone levels are lower.

- Therefore early human testosterone levels were higher and further, this was selected for in some way, shape for fashion.

Total BS. Two speculative leaps and a nice large jump to a conclusion. It is trivial to create other equally valid hypotheses from this data.

Re: Coincidence

[alen]

There is some logic behind

A Russian scientist turned wild foxes into cute puppies in about 10 generations by breeding for lower adrenaline levels

Re: Coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Russians

Re: Coincidence

[Enigma2175]

There is some logic behind

A Russian scientist turned wild foxes into cute puppies in about 10 generations by breeding for lower adrenaline levels

Not necessarily adrenaline levels, but that may have been the way it worked out. All they bred for was aggression, the more aggressive foxes were not allowed to breed. This resulted in a tamer fox, but also a lot of other traits that we associate with dogs (juvenilization, coloration patterns, vocalization, etc). Just selecting for one thing can have a profound effect on the species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Correlation and causation

[Anonymous Coward]

reduced testosterone levels enabled increasingly social people to better learn from and cooperate with each other

Why not the opposite? Why not "better learning abilities and cooperation in increasingly social people causes testosterone levels to drop"?

Not that either needs to be true, mind you. Sales figure for strawberry ice cream correlate with violent crime, but neither is causally connected to the other (it just so happens that summer and hot temperatures make people more aggressive, as well as more likely to crave ice cream).

Captcha: "caveat".

Re:Correlation and causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly violence and strawberry ice cream cause summer and hot temperatures, not the other way around.

Re:Correlation and causation

[PPH]

Why not the opposite?

Why not neither. More advanced societies can find some function for the low testosterone members. And so they survive and breed.

In hunter-gatherer societies, everyone needs to go out and kill some game. Once social groups get bigger and economies develop trade, they get more diverse. Someone can stay behind in the village and make furniture or bake bread.

the domestication of man

[Anonymous Coward]

civilization was only possible on a large scale once man began to become domesticated.

Re:the domestication of man

[Nephandus]

You do realize domesticated there exactly means sheeplized? Most became proud servants to sleazy incompetents and psychotics. That was always civilization's primary purpose.

Nonsense in scientific language

[Futurepower(R)]

This is part of the extreme hostility toward men in the U.S. culture.

The body is extremely complicated. There are maybe a million chemicals? Choosing one supposedly connected with men but actually present in both men and women, testosterone, and talking about its importance is thinly veiled hostility.

The current wave of hostility of women toward men began with the book The Second Sex, by Simone de Beauvoir, a woman who was very confused about life. The book mentioned negative things men do, and avoided mentioning the negative things women do. Part of her viewpoint was influenced by the fact that she was trying to get women to have sex with her.

There is a movie that shows Simone de Beauvoir was treated as an equal by Jean-Paul Sartre, a French philosopher and friend. She was not second.

Both Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre had terrible childhoods and both did things in their adult lives that demonstrated their confusion.

The Washington Post article linked in the Slashdot summary says, "No, this isnâ(TM)t some jab at dudes." Yes it is, and extremely stupid about biochemistry and civilization, also.

Re: Nonsense in scientific language

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously. It takes a man like you to tell a woman she is very confused about life.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[serviscope_minor]

This is part of the extreme hostility toward men in the U.S. culture.

I know, right? I mean when will the US ever get a male president?

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Anonymous Coward]

When will more women grow the balls to run for president?
Since only 1 woman has ever run for president I don't think it's strange that she wasn't chosen.
It's simple statistics.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes sense if you don't think about it at all, which is probably how you approach many things in life.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Intrepid imaginaut]

You are aware the majority of the electorate in the US is female, right? So maybe there's a slim possibility that they're voting for something other than the genitals of political candidates, due to not being eight years old anymore?

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Anonymous Coward]

They say PHD is well educated imbecile,being book smart does not equal intelligence.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[serviscope_minor]

You are aware the majority of the electorate in the US is female, right? So maybe there's a slim possibility that they're voting for something other than the genitals of political candidates, due to not being eight years old anymore?

You seem to be implying that femaleness equates to somehow being less bigoted than being male. I think that is somewhat unlikely.

You're also implying that anyone over the age of 8 is not sexist.

Reality disagrees with your fantasy.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I'm directly saying that people, men and women, who are mature adults vote in their own best interests rather than pandering to some sort of juvenile playground instinct as feminists would prefer them to. They vote for the person they believe will best represent those interests. Now if you want to talk about why more women don't stand for election, go for it, but that's a different conversation. There is, after all, nothing stopping them.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Anonymous Coward]

When will more women grow the balls to run for president?
Since only 1 woman has ever run for president I don't think it's strange that she wasn't chosen.
It's simple statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates

I guess simple counting is beyond you.

And don't bother trying to quibble with some assertions about seriousness, you didn't limit your sentence to that.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Anonymous Coward]

I approach life the same way you do, since we are the same person.

Re: Nonsense in scientific language

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously. It takes a man like you to tell a woman she is very confused about life.

Well, someone has to cut through the solipsism that forms the basis of most female thought

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Anonymous Coward]

This is part of the extreme hostility toward men in the U.S. culture.

I know, right? I mean when will the US ever get a male president?

Textbook example of "apex fallacy".

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, we wait for handful of female presidents to be assassinated before declaring equality.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Anonymous Coward]

The political campaign advertisements I see, if at all effective, do not represent your standard, but rather indicate the belief that those behind those advertisements, find it easier to utilize those juvenile playground instincts to manipulate their prospective voters.

Really, such hysterical calls and screaming, with empty rhetoric, do not convince me of anything involving mature adults. Certainly appeals to one's best interest do exist, but that's not a hallmark of maturity.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Iamthecheese]

Amusing but wrong. You can't use "the people on top are men" to mean "all men are on top" And neither negates the very real hostility men experience in the form of "dumb dad" stereotypes, more severe punishments for equal crimes, biased family courts, the pervasive idea that men are dangerous, and many more.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[cryptizard]

Lets suppose some of those things are true. They might be, who knows because, as you say, not a lot of people are talking about them. Fucking do something about it then instead of just complaining. "We have problems too, so therefore your problems are invalid and we should all live in shit together" is not an argument. Feminists are trying to fix problems that matter to them. You try and fix problems that matter to you.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[epyT-R]

Just because few women have run does not automatically mean that it's men who are keeping them away.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Anonymous Coward]

Some men try to do something. They get demonized almost as bad as pedophiles.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Nephandus]

Raising awareness it doing something. Feminists have sold so damn much misandric rhetoric as sacrosanct bellyfeel "fact", it's nigh impossible to get taken seriously. Officially, the feminist lobby will openly destroy and demonize any attempt to stop them from pushing more biased laws policies, much less to correct anything already in place.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[serviscope_minor]

I'm directly saying that people, men and women, who are mature adults vote in their own best interests

Ah well, No True Scotsman would vote against his own interests.

By sticking in the "mature" qualifier, you automatically exclude everyone who doesn't fit your definition of mature.

Back in the real world, people manifestly do *not* vote in their own interest. Witness (a) low voter turnout and (b) the tea party.

ather than pandering to some sort of juvenile playground instinct as feminists would prefer them to.

Well, sure you can take a random dig at feminists if you like. It does not make you any more correct.

They vote for the person they believe will best represent those interests.

Do we inhabit the same planet, or do you have a different definition of "human" from the rest of us? This is -demonstrably- not the case.

There is, after all, nothing stopping them.

Um, sexism in the primaries would stop them. But sure you can eliminate sexism by fiat simply by declaring it no longer exists.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[serviscope_minor]

Seriously stop making shit up about feminists as a whole.

Sure there are some loopy wingnut feminists out there just as there are loopy wingnut [insert random subset of population] out there. I could just as easily label you as a loopy wingnut for being a man, a woman (I've no idea which you are), a slashdotter, an American (preaumably...) and so on.

Doing so would not be helpful.

So, to take your example from earlier about men getting bias against them in family courts.

Well if the bullshit "women are more nurturing and better at childcare" thing will finally die as feminists seem to want, that would have rather good implications for men in the family courts.

Some things are bad for men, but that doesn't mean sexism against women doesn't exist. And some of the things that are bad for men are caused by that very same sexism. The weird-ass definitions of "man" that involve alphaness and being an ass are generally terrible and have been the cause of things such as violence and intimidation against many men perceived to be more "effeminate". This continues on in the general assumption that the only allowed emotions for men are stoicism and anger, with the only outburst allowed being violence.

That's all pretty shittty.

If women are -equal- then there's nothing wrong with being more woman-like. And all those shitty things will vanish.

In other words stop blaming feminists for shit like this. If they actually get their way then your life as a man will improve.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Nephandus]

My example? The bias in family courts is due to the FEMINIST "tender years" doctrine, which basically rests on female emotion being fucking nature magic, which is still being pushed today. Males are painted as dull aggressors by the feminist lobby as a rule. Your presumption of male emotions, likewise, more befits the feminist doctrine that males need female to tell them how they should feel than any real defense of males. If they get their way, there will be even more sexist laws targeting me and more deluded princesses preaching at me from atop their bloating pretense.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[serviscope_minor]

Males are painted as dull aggressors by the feminist lobby as a rule.

[citation needed]

Feminists for the most part want women to be EQUAL, not different.

Your presumption of male emotions, likewise, more befits the feminist doctrine that males need female to tell them how they should feel than any real defense of males.

WTF are you on about. The "boys don't cry" thing is not a piece of feminist doctrine. It's a shitpile caused by men (and women) who thing that guys should be some sort of "masculine" which means not feminine.

If feminists get true equality, that shit disappears!

If they get their way, there will be even more sexist laws targeting me and more deluded princesses preaching at me from atop their bloating pretense.

You sound like you've constructed a veritable army of straw feminists to slaughter.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[Areyoukiddingme]

I was going to keep quiet in this thread, but I couldn't let this pass.

They vote for the person they believe will best represent those interests.

No, they don't. They really really REALLY don't. This has been empirically proven. They vote for the guy with the best hair. They vote for the guy with the best smile. They vote for the guy with the best handshake. They vote for the guy with the "right" tag after his name. They vote for the guy who says all the correct trigger phrases they've been conditioned to respond to. The very LAST thing they do is vote for the person they believe will best represent their interests. That literally isn't a criteria. And yes, I included the "they believe" phrase on purpose. Anybody who can do arithmetic can prove that the vast majority of the country has been voting for people who do not actually represent their interests. It's worse than that. They don't even vote for people they (erroneously) believe will represent their interests. The hair and the smile and the square jaw get the vote, and if asked why, the answer is, "Because I just liked him. He seemed nice. Trustworthy."

More often than not, they don't really understand what would be in their own interests. Most of them have been continuously exposed to a giant propaganda machine literally since birth (young adults vote in line with their parents, almost universally). Most of them are unable to see through the most basic levels of the propaganda machine, the parts that say, "Do this because if you do, you will be a good person." Only a few of them have to be convinced by the more sophisticated modes of the propaganda machine, the parts that get all tricky and use reverse psychology. (That would be the mode that works on Slashdot. You rebels you.) Interests? Interests run in last place in terms of what people vote for. People vote for image and for their hot button single issues and that's all.

Re:Nonsense in scientific language

[jeIIomizer]

I'm directly saying that people, men and women, who are mature adults vote in their own best interests

Now that's just comical. Most people just vote for a party. Voting for Republican or Democrat scumbags isn't in anyone's best interests.

Anti-male *HATE SPEACH*

[Anonymous Coward]

How much evil testosterone fills veins of these feminist speakers of hate?!
So much aggression in their actions and words.
The sooner feminists extinct the better for the society...

Re:Anti-male *HATE SPEACH*

[Anonymous Coward]

WRT gender and PROTECTED CLASS, males are NOT protected. Ergo, actions against males of like immutable characteristics are NOT hate crimes.
Must I repost the "hierarchy of protected classes" for the nth time?

Re:Anti-male *HATE SPEACH*

[Anonymous Coward]

When killing a male will not be a crime as well? You retarded leftist scum.

LOL. What about AFRICANS?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have higher testosterone than other races. Oh, wait... getting a bit too close to the TRUTH for Slashdot. LOL.

Re:LOL. What about AFRICANS?

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of hate-speech against men in society today is rather alarming. In the days before feminism, I'm not sure men ever suggested that women be exterminated as a gender. And yet today, the war on men grows increasingly loud and hate-filled by the day.

oestrogena bomb

[Rigodi]

really got to put this oestrogena bomb in production now...

Makes sense

[TheDarkMaster]

Subjects with high levels of testosterone behave pretty much like savages animals, I have witnessed such cases. They behave aggressively, always trying to harm other men (domination, "alpha male") and trying to take woman by force, there is no way to have cooperation between this type of people. The chance to have cooperation between this type of people is very small.

Re:Makes sense

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I recall watching a documentary on doping in the cycling world - possibly a documentary on Lance Armstrong, I don't remember - in which they described some cyclist who had taken a course of testosterone as becoming quick-tempered and violent as a result, and in a very short time too. I guess it is true

Re:Makes sense

[kosh271]

Subjects with high levels of testosterone behave pretty much like savages animals, I have witnessed such cases.

Are you saying that you are a medical doctor and have analyzed the testosterone levels of this group of males? If not, you are merely making an assumption that these cases are due to high testosterone levels in the males in question.

I do not condone trying to take a woman by force. Until you have actually done the research to back your statements up, I will be left to wonder about other factors (such as bad parenting and poor role models).

Re:Makes sense

[TheDarkMaster]

Believe it or not, I have witnessed such cases and explained to me that they were caused by excess testosterone (natural or injected supplements). Now to give opinion on Slashdot is necessary for you to be a doctor on the subject? Well, you have every right to not like what others say.

Re:Makes sense

[Riddler Sensei]

Testosterone isn't some Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde concoction like you seem to think it is.

As long as we're dealing with anecdotes I will throw mine into the ring. I've engaged in powerlifting as a hobby for the past two years, during which I have met some very impressive, and dedicated, individuals. These men are strong. Really strong. Functionally strong. They're not just pounding out hammer curls and shrugs to get a pump. They are training for strength, the kind of strength where elevated testosterone just comes with the territory. And they've all been pussycats. After benching just shy of 400lbs they aren't grunting and scowling, they're grinning ear-to-ear and are practically giggling. They're considerate with the equipment and readily share when the weight room is busy. They don't scoff at the 110lbs new guy, rather they're begging the new guy to take before-and-after shots because, "...if you keep this up you are going to be AWESOME in a year!"

Testosterone does not cause assholish-ness, per se, so much as it exacerbates it. If you are a kind, decent, person then becoming strong (and thus achieving higher levels of testosterone) will not change that. But if you are dick...well now you are a dick who is strong and you likely no longer feel the need to restrain your jackass behavior because you feel as though you can physically overwhelm any challengers to your supreme phallus.

Re:Makes sense

[PPH]

Subjects with high testosterone levels* are socialized to compete for some goal. Subjects with low testosterone levels (women) compete against each other. I don't think you want to live in a society dominated by people always trying to trip each other up while smiling at each other.

I have witnessed such cases.

And I have witnessed the aforementioned behavior. Taken advantage of it on numerous occasions as well. I'd rather deal with someone that confronts me than creeps around behind my back.

always trying to harm other men (domination, "alpha male")

Not really. Read Sex at Dawn. Homo sapiens are more closely related to primate species that don't have definite alpha male societies. Animals (not just primates) that do have such a social model are characterised by smaller testicles/penises and less sexual activity. Humans, chimps and bonobos are more closely related and have more sex and larger sexual organs (in relation to body mass) than gorillas (alpha male groups). I'd say the alpha male social model (or alpha female) is more an indicator of a lack of testosterone.

*Maybe. Its a male behavioral characteristic, modified by social settings. Some women have a certain amount of testosterone as well and I wouldn't be surprised if these are more sucessful in business and other stereotypical male professions.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. I worked in a gym for about six years, and the men that caused problems were the ones coming off of a cycle. Their test level drops greatly until their natural production restarted. It is low testosterone that causes the aggressiveness.

Re:Makes sense

[Oligonicella]

Bingo. It is your opinion. Yet in your first post you stated it as if it were fact, which is what you were called on.

Re:Makes sense

[cryptizard]

Pretty sure increased strength does not cause higher levels of testosterone. Higher testosterone might make it easier to build muscle, but there is no reason that people interested in power lifting would have higher testosterone.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

If testosterone has any effect on aggressiveness in men, it's so subtle that studies have a hard time demonstrating it. If you think you can observe this in normal people, you're kidding yourself. There is a simple correlation, however: men with abnormally low testosterone levels, aren't aggressive, for the simple reason that they feel like shit.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

... are a dick who is strong ...

I have seen something similar.

Men do not have a lot of status while they are young. Many decide to expend their "piss and vinegar" by learning how to fight. They join a martial arts club and spend a few months slamming their fist through a punching bag. The athletic and taller versions of these two-punch script kiddies then think they are equal to someone who has spent a decade hardening their fists and honing their reactions. Close combat is finding someone's weakness before he finds yours; so experience counts. A bit of kumite with their elders forces such social-climbing youngsters to decide the road to proficiency is too long and leave the club, presumably to pick a fight that guarantees an easy victory.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

The process of strength training does end up raising one's level of testosterone. It's basic science at this point.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point is that resistance training such as power lifting and strength training leads to increased serum testosterone

Re:Makes sense

[werepants]

There's a complicated relationship between muscle mass and testosterone. Higher levels of testosterone do help you to build muscle, but there's also a strong indication that heavy resistance exercise increases testosterone and that higher levels of muscle mass will increase your testosterone production.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

And as shown in this very thread, they VERY violently deny their outbursts. Some of these commenters are literally a few minutes away from an anger-based aneurysm.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Subjects with high testosterone levels* are socialized to compete for some goal. Subjects with low testosterone levels (women) compete against each other. I don't think you want to live in a society dominated by people always trying to trip each other up while smiling at each other.

This is laughably ignorant. There is not a single scientific study that would back this up, as every study I've heard of says the exact opposite. It's like you flipped what you want to believe with what exists in reality, and then pretend like it's valid.. just because? Go read some books kiddo.

Re:Makes sense

[Tyler Durden]

Testosterone does not cause assholish-ness, per se, so much as it exacerbates it.

Oh, so kind of like alcohol then.

Re:Makes sense

[PPH]

as every study I've heard of says the exact opposite.

[citation needed]

Studies depend on funding and don't like to rock the politically correct boat of equality. It's interesting that some of the best material available to study the subject is the folklore of various cultures. For example, there is no male* equivalent of Cinderella's evil stepsisters, with warnings about surrepticious activity used to undermine a competitor.

*This is not entirely true. Some linguistic studies have been done to characterize speech differences between genders. Including some recent work with computational linguistics, using things like Twitter as a corpus. When text of a conversation is scrubbed of gender identifying word forms, people (and computers) can identify male vs female conversations by certain things like making negative comments about third parties and other similar topics. At first, the difference appeared to be statistically insignificant. But upon further study, it appears that the populations used for training the semantic tools may have been polluted by not correcting for the Kinsey scale [wikipedia.org]. Once that is done, the aversion of (politically incorrect statement ahead) straight men to cut people down behind their back becomes evident. Its an old generalization that appears to be proven out. If you hear two people discussing something like "the ugly outfit" that someone else is wearing, it is stereotypically women or gay men. Men tend to make a remark directly to the subject's face (sometimes just in fun).

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

They will be evolved out of existence soon. The sooner the better.

And replaced by whom ? Bonobos ?
If I were a bonobo I sure wouldn't mind but...

Social Engineering?

[Anonymous Coward]

'Necessary' doesn't mean they had more babies, though.

What's more likely is that with the advent of agriculture, more people spent their lives living in one place, with a number of consequences. One is that women and their children were more likely to live their lives alongside their other children, so having more cooperative, less violent children became advantageous. Another is that women were more likely to be impregnated by one of the local farmers, rather than the hot wandering barbarian hunter or the gang of rapists.

Furthermore, there is a theory that the primary purpose of developing agriculture was not for food but for alcohol. It may have been that the peaceful farmers' access to stuff that could get women drunk was conducive to them having more babies.

Guy needs funding for real research

[Anonymous Coward]

What a great society we have evolved into when man-hating is a viable method to secure funding...

I have a better Theory...

[Anonymous Coward]

Aliens came down from the sky and told us to get our shit together. I have the same amount of evidence that this research has, I.E. I pulled it out of my ass, they just spent a few hours in a library before they pulled theirs out of their asses.

Re:Men are obsolete

[ganjadude]

somehow i knew that was going to be the first comment. This news really will give the militant feminism a new shot in the arm however

Modern society?

[Sla$hPot]

"which lead to modern society"
And now we have the bomb, albeit only for about 70 years
Lets hope that testosterone won't suddenly raise again..Bye bye feminism

Re: Modern society?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then we could keep or marry young girls again

For this twit, a great French phrase:

[smittyoneeach]

nostalgie de la boue

I, for one, could live more happily if the anti-human nihilists would just fall off the planet.

Re:For this twit, a great French phrase:

[Anonymous Coward]

nostalgie de la boue

I, for one, could live more happily if the anti-human nihilists would just fall off the planet.

So basically, what you are saying is that you hate anti-human nhilists, and nothing would make you happier than if they all died.

hmmm......
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Re:For this twit, a great French phrase:

[fustakrakich]

Hey listen, it sounded good the first time. Don't overdo it.

Re:For this twit, a great French phrase:

[smittyoneeach]

How do you overdo the truth?

Re:For this twit, a great French phrase:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the one who said: "nothing would make you happier than if they all died".

Re:Men are obsolete

[ShanghaiBill]

In the days before feminism, I'm not sure men ever suggested that women be exterminated as a gender.

Perhaps because that is not practical. The human species cannot continue to exist without women. Men, on the other hand, could be replaced with a sperm bank. Long before the sperm bank is depleted, female scientists should be able to perfect human ova-fusion, which is already working in mice.

I am not saying men should be exterminated. I am just saying that there are no significant technical barriers.

Chicken or egg?

[ABEND]

It makes little sense that testosterone levels independently started decreasing. Occam's Razor says that civilization and technology made it possible for weaker humans to survive thus the decrease in testosterone related features in humans.

the meek...

[Anonymous Coward]

... shall inherit the earth?

Wars, empires, testosterone

[mapuche]

Civilization comes with war. Warriors need a lot of testosterone and battles lead to anihilation of hi-testosterone individuals. I find some evolutive path to decrease of testosterone.

Re:Wars, empires, testosterone

[Oligonicella]

Chimps wage war. It is not something that "comes" with civilization, like Oscar thinks gravy comes with meatloaf.

Re: Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you give one example of an actual published feminist scholar saying anything remotely like that?

I've only ever heard men suggest that "militant feminists" want to get rid of men. Which is embarrassing because it makes us sound pathetic.

You are on crack

[Intrepid imaginaut]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

The study's results, however, contradict this view sharply. Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. "The preconception that testosterone only causes aggressive or egoistic behavior in humans is thus clearly refuted," sums up Eisenegger. Instead, the findings suggest that the hormone increases the sensitivity for status. For animal species with relatively simple social systems, an increased awareness for status may express itself in aggressiveness. "In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression," surmises study co-author Michael Naef from Royal Holloway London. "The interplay between testosterone and the socially differentiated environment of humans, and not testosterone itself, probably causes fair or aggressive behavior."

Moreover the study shows that the popular wisdom that the hormone causes aggression is apparently deeply entrenched: those test subjects who believed they had received the testosterone compound and not the placebo stood out with their conspicuously unfair offers. It is possible that these persons exploited the popular wisdom to legitimate their unfair actions. Economist Michael Naef states: "It appears that it is not testosterone itself that induces aggressiveness, but rather the myth surrounding the hormone. In a society where qualities and manners of behavior are increasingly traced to biological causes and thereby partly legitimated, this should make us sit up and take notice." The study clearly demonstrates the influence of both social as well as biological factors on human behavior.

Not "civilization", Natural Selection

[devloop]

Could it be instead that civilization caused a general lowering of testosterone..?

It *doesn't* work that way. Natural selection causes traits beneficial to survival/reproduction to become dominant. "Civilzation" cannot "cause" anything.

The conclusion reached by the researches is also nothing but a romanticized opinion, as we don't see lower levels of aggression in current humans.

The most likely (and brutal) cause-effect relationship is that tool makers, who were smarter and at least as aggressive despite their testosterone leves, dispatched the less intelligent high testosterone rivals and/or outbred them.

Re: Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Re: Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...

http://www.belladonna.org/Gyno...

Makes total sense

[LihTox]

You can't build a civilization with *alpha* males; they have to *at least* be in beta.

(Preferably release versions, but you take what you can get.)

Re:Makes total sense

[Anonymous Coward]

> "You can't build a civilization with *alpha* males; they have to *at least* be in beta."

Come on lady Slashdotters - surely one of you has to come along and post a "Fuck beta!" comment :)

Or in other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ancient Skulls Show Extinctions Rose As Testosterone Fell.
Nothing worse than a bunch of apes pooling their resources to consume all the resources even faster.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Megol]

Militant feminism? Near 100% of _real_ feminists want men to exist and a majority to keep traditionally male behavior in large. Militant feminists that doesn't want men to exist are very few, should be close in number to those militant environmentalists that think people should be exterminated...

I wouldn't be surprised at all

[joh]

High testosterone levels lead to dominant behaviour, aggression and generally a fixation with power and getting pussy. Cooperation and quietly working on things with others certainly takes a back seat then. It's individual success in terms of mating and dominating over success that is actually useful in the long run and with "boring" things.

That said, not being surprised in no evidence. In best /. fashion I haven't read the fine article, but I would want to see some mechanism that actually LEAD to lower testosterone levels. Evolution? Maybe, seems a bit short, but these are time frames that indeed were long enough to lead to lactose-tolerance to dominate in dairy-eating populations all over the world, so I wouldn't count out evolution rearing its head here. Mutations that supported drinking milk and eating cheese quickly dominated. Maybe other mutations that supported being more peaceful, not getting into pointless fights, and getting things done in a goal-oriented way instead of being fixated onto telling others what to do while holding on to five women without actually knowing what to do except fucking a lot also dominated for very good reasons.

And really: The lone fact that a LOT of people are totally capable to live their lives in dense populations without really fighting others all the time gives some weight to that. Maybe high testosterone levels are just incompatible with population growth and dense populations. Maybe they cause too much trouble to be successful (in an evolutionary sense) when all is said and done. Maybe the quietly working type of guys who are happy with one women and want to be left alone and leave others alone may be not as successful as the dominant asshole individually but there may be just much more of them and they don't get killed as often and raise more children altogether. Maybe even the fact that spraying your genes around isn't of much help when you can't support 10 women and their offspring and single women aren't that good in supporting their children plays a role here.

Every Genghis Khan may have fucked a lot, but he also will have killed a lot of men willing to fight and all the while those men who just got the bread home every day and just fucked one women were breading like rabbits and actually helped their children to prosper when you sum it up. Evolution isn't about individuals but about numbers of individuals actually surviving until maturity (and beyond, since a newborn child alone isn't going to survive for very long).

Re:I wouldn't be surprised at all

[Optali]

The lone fact that a LOT of people are totally capable to live their lives in dense populations without really fighting others all the time gives some weight to that.

I guess somebody has forgotten the meaning of the terms army,war and genocide, right?

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah but how are a bunch of retarded women going to invent new technology? so few of them can even think. they're basically animals.

Let me guess

[Anonymous Coward]

In Russia the women have boners?

Broke? Say what we want and you won't be...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this news? Is hating on men a viable way to make money now? Seriously, this is like saying estrogen is the reason why we aren't traveling back and forth from Mars today. Men have to spend a lot of time making women happy, because that's how they've been raised. Instead of working toward developing a viable warp drive, they have had to waste endless hours at the mall "shopping" and hoping that their behavior is rewarded with sex.

Seriously, the headline reads as "men are the root 'cause of all of our problems". How about making the headlines a bit more PC? Yes, men's rights are a PC issue too. I've noticed this is becoming more common as of lately.. did you all hire an "extremist"???

Re:Men are obsolete

[ganjadude]

yet for some reason those are the ones that get all the coverage. Try going to a feminism blog and reading for yourself. I had someone try and equate telling a woman she has nice eyes to rape just earlier today. apparently chivalry is dead, and it was killed by women

Logical Fallacy Alert

[the eric conspiracy]

Correlation does not imply causation.

Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

What is some student paper getting any attention? Don't put any weight into something that can't be proven, and most likely is made up to make an interesting paper to graduate. All that matters to the student is that it sounds possible.

But this is science now a days, stuff you can't prove, and has no importance on anyone reading it. Nothing needs to be checked by someone else before publishing it as true and confusing people.

I guess

[bytesex]

It was because we started cross-breeding with Neanderthals. And then wiping them out, because they were *still* friendlier than we were.

You could lower mens sex drive 95%...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and still be able to populate the world 10x over. If I could have back all that time that slipped through my fingers .... maybe I could have made something of my life..

Licorice time

[cleveralias]

I'm going to buy some licorice and get civilized. The liquorice plant is native to southern Europe and parts of Asia. Is that where ancient art and tools are found?

Civilization lowered T levels?

[Anonymous Coward]

Civilization lowered testosterone levels, explaining the physical weakness seen as nomadic tribes become settled, as well as their susceptibility to disease.

It's funny how the article, the scientists, and society in general are willing to buy bullshit like "low T causes civilization" instead of the inverse. The demonization of T, and men in general, is a serious problem.

Re:Men are obsolete

[flyneye]

Not me, baby, there's a curve in there somewhere obviously. I'm testosterony as hell, barely civilized enough to get a paycheck and spread my genes far and wide.
Observing rules of science, it is the more genteel, sensitive types who have opted to seek infertile same-sex relationships that take themselves out of the gene pool forever.
This article obviously reflects research of biased and poor criteria that places the subjects in an artificial never-never land based on wishful thinking of some sister-boy in a lab coat on a government grant somewhere. How else could the obvious be so occluded?
Historically speaking, civilization may be a social virus that we will get over, in order to survive. The sensitive, empathetic types were needed for some progress, now their need is gone, so our cousins fade away and leave room for Tyranosaphiens. Ever consider that?

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly ugly men-looking dykes with daddy issues who have found a decent vibrator. Hairy chested manhaters, aren't even as well done as their male counterparts in drag.
Yeah, every now and then some go on the down low for some cock anyway. I love seein' butch assholes get all jealous. Then they pretend they planned it that way when you knock their partner up. Happens on Craigslist everyday...

Re:Men are obsolete

[flyneye]

I love it when they get stirred up. I keep hopin' a Mini-Cooper will pull up to the curb and about 30 uber-emo-activist feminists will get out and have their drama circus on a sidewalk.
They whine so funny, you'd think they were women.

Re: Men are obsolete

[flyneye]

Come on,man, you're a dude. Pretending you are a woman in a post makes you a Transvestwrite.

Galt galt galt

[Anonymous Coward]

Why TF has no-one brought up Ayn Rand yet? You know, the one who was on medicare and social security. So was the dude in that book a testosterone deficit beta loser or a sexy testosterone alpha over achiever champion? Which is it??!??! My brain is hurts!!!!!

Correction: led

[Anonymous Coward]

Lead is a present tense verb or one of the elements.
Led is past tense.

Similarly, "plead" is present tense, "pled" is past tense.

Re: Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

None of this really matters, feminists or anti males have a long way to go before they get rid of us, good luck :) also maybe they should get their test/estrogen levels checked as well since women also produce testosterone and some in scary irregularly high amounts. We might as well get rid of those unbalanced women as well eh? Wouldn't be surprised if they are mostly radical feminists.

Just a little while longer

[Krishnoid]

We just need to wait roughly three hundred years at this point. The science fiction relies more on genetics than hormones, but you can make the extrapolation.

Re:Men are obsolete

[epyT-R]

Of course. Ignore all the things men have done for culture, like develop the sciences necessary to build those mythical 'sperm banks' you speak of.

This leftist utopian crap needs to die.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly a very good source since the text is cut off on the right. Has it even been proof-read, let alone peer reviewed? None the less, you can only create clones with female DNA, which would be an evolutionary dead end. Human females simply do not poses the full set of DNA information. You can however create offspring from male only DNA (the CBC is an actual real source): http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol... Thanks to the magic of extra-corporeal pregnancy, one day (very soon http://beforeitsnews.com/scien...) we'll be able to eliminate all the birth defects caused by mothers drinking and smoking during pregnancy by simply transplanting the fetus to an artificial womb. Abortion will become obsolete. Don't want to be a mom? Fine, but that baby will still develop into an adult one day that will come to resent you. And eventually women won't even need to be involved in the process. We'll be able to start with sperm alone.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Perhaps because that is not practical.

Or perhaps because only something as demented as feminism could come up with such a lunatic idea in the first place.

The human species cannot continue to exist without women. Men, on the other hand, could be replaced with a sperm bank. Long before the sperm bank is depleted, female scientists should be able to perfect human ova-fusion, which is already working in mice.

I am not saying men should be exterminated. I am just saying that there are no significant technical barriers.

Completely unneccessary. Assuming a world where feminists (not women mind you, women tend to like men quite a lot) reign supreme, why not just keep a minimum breeding stock of boys and off them after they hit age 20? After all that's what leading feminists Mary Daly and Sally Miller Gearhart wanted, reduce the population of men to 10% or so, frothing nazis that they were.

Happily however the general population is starting to go very sour indeed on feminism, and I would hope to see the final end of the religion within my lifetime.

Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Idiocracy" (2006) suggests Mankind's future still lies with testosterone.

Re:Men are obsolete

[epyT-R]

mmmm... no. That is a no true scotsman fallacy.

At best, a 'coffeeshop' style feminist wants men around as ATM machines and 'tough job' handlers.. These are the ones who think feminism is nothing more than equality between the two sexes, and think that men are or really should be women with penises...except when equality gets too hard for them, then they want their white knight to save the day.

In the past, the militant kind wanted men reduced in population, made subservient to women, or just outright used as slaves or eliminated. Today, they express that same misandry by pushing policies supporting that mentality in education, media programming, civil law, criminal law, and, are now making/funding their presence in subcultures, like technology and gaming. You have to be careful with this kind of thing, as the poison is in the implied, 'unintended' outcomes of said policies: Schools focus on girls because supposedly they're such victims, and, now, boys are left behind and/or are made to comply effeminately, at the college level, 2/3 graduates are women as male populations continue their decline, media/entertainment has been softened and made more about relationships and feelings (everything is now a 'reality' soap opera), employers must meet quotas and build office policy around feminine imperatives as defaults (destroying male psychoaccoustic spaces and making them female), product design and advertising now also focuses almost exclusively on feminine imperatives.

It is NOT about anyone's liberation. It uses women's desire for protection and provision to help bootstrap tyrannical power. Like those stories about people making deals with the devil, initially it's great for the recipient, but in the end, everyone gets burned.

Re:Men are obsolete

[WhoBeI]

Neither the article nor the Utah University publication mention gender. As this was, probably, an evolutionary step I would think the change happened in both genders. Males produce more testosterone so it stands to reason that the change would be more dramatic in them. Second, many take the 'heavy brows' thing to indicate male but it was a species thing. If a heavier bone structure had anything to do with fighting and violence it makes more sense that it would exist in the hand. Your hand can take a lot less punishment then your head. Ask your favorite UFC fighter.

So does that mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

... our strange-browed ancestors liked extra bloodwine with their gagh?

Re:Men are obsolete

[DivineKnight]

"I am not saying men should be exterminated. I am just saying that there are no significant technical barriers."

Lol, let me get this straight...you want to remove the male half of a species, then permanently weld the female half of the species to technology from now until the end of time, and you think this is not a significant technological barrier? That's a bold statement, let's check in with our Russian judges, and see what score they give your mental gymnastics...an 11 / 10, impressive.

I could touch on the greater science out there which points to the genetic depletion of the overall gene pool of humanity, but I digress, so few people can see the forest for the trees these days, that I'll spare you that lecture. I'll simply state that if one were to head down the proposed path of sperm bank males, the species as a whole would suffer, and, without genetic engineering bordering on Science Fiction levels, would be permanently disabled. I say this, because without heading down that path, we've already screwed ourslves, genetically speaking, the consequences of which have been the arrival of genetic diseases that no one can seem to shake.

And yes, there is a significant difference between rats / mice and human beings which is why this would cause such a problem. One of those science 'gotchas.' It's addressed in the report I am alluding to, and will let you google if you wish to read it.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Phernost]

Yes, because women could have never developed the necessary sciences ... right?

I'm pretty sure gendercide isn't the bailiwick of either party, left or right. Plus, the quickest way to get to utopia is to get rid off all the people, both genders. No people, no problems.

You all missed a key point, again...

[Anonymous Coward]

The study is based on skull development and the influence testosterone has on it, DURING DEVELOPMENT, yet you bone heads are all arguing about it's effects in adulthood rather than on how it may also influence brain function in the young and therefore behaviour later in life regardless of adult hormone levels.

Apologies to anyone I have overlooked who did "get it".

 

Re:Men are obsolete

[DivineKnight]

Oh damn, got so off track replying to parent / grandparent, I didn't have a chance to make the post I wanted.

http://www.nature.com/nature/j...

Testosterone is the hormone which is responsible for aggressiveness and individuality, right? Except when it's not. It's the 'everybody knows' kind of wisdom that is bunk -> I've been studying this off and on for a while, and the hormone in both males and females that is responsible for aggression, IMHO, is progesterone; think of your wife / gf who gets PMS, this hormone is in play, and men have some of it in their systems as well. Testosterone seems to get a bad rap, with half the research saying this, and half saying that. Read up on it...the scary thought is, if one half is right, then chemical castration of sex offendors actually makes things worse, rather than better.

Re:Men are obsolete

[lisaparratt]

It seemed like a step too far, but then they read the slashdot comments, and suddenly spermbanks seemed the more rational option.

Re: Men are obsolete

[lisaparratt]

So what you're saying is that the main source of naysaying against feminism is the patriarchy?

WHO KNEW?!

Re:Men are obsolete

[DivineKnight]

+1, Funny.

Re: Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminism turned out to be nothing less than a power grab.

Equality is absolutely not the goal. Winning is.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a really nice example of stupidity in both arguments. One seems to think that men did everything despite the copious evidence that history was simply written that way, and the other wants to belittle what men accomplished because "well women could have done it too".

Newsflash: neither opinion is worth a damn thing. Stop trying to belittle each other, and start trying to coexist. We've done it for a LONG time, no thanks to your kinds trying to divide us all the while. Just because the Internet lets you spout your idiotic ramblings and argue doesn't mean you shouldn't try to better yourselves as human beings.

Women still have barriers in society, and rather than just taking those down we're creating certain barriers for men instead - some of them progressive in the good way, others repressive and over-reactionary at best. This is equality. You don't just get the good things. One gender won't just magically "become better" while the other stays at the top. Empowerment of one gender is impossible without disempowering the other. That is already enough struggle without both extreme viewpoints being self-righteous and childish about it.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine, but that baby will still develop into an adult one day that will come to resent you.

So just like natural childbirth?

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, you got my vote.

Same scientists?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like we can make anything up, like global warming, to advance an agenda like this. Male haters.

Actually, Milk isn't part of it

[bussdriver]

Milk was not evolutionary; changes in gut bacteria allowed the drinking of milk because of stupid human behavior they were not eating properly so those children who could use milk lived at higher rates.

The solution to many problems would be changing the evolutionary pressure so that aggressive and likely testosterone high males do not have offspring. It may currently be unusual but it is NOT crewel to vasectomy rapists and other violent offenders.

junk science

[silfen]

Whatever the cause, reduced testosterone levels enabled increasingly social people to better learn from and cooperate with each other

That's pure speculation at this point. Falling testosterone levels may have been a consequence of civilization, not a cause. Or it may have been coincidental.

People really need to start separating scientific fact from speculation.

Re: Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an embarrassment.

Re: Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

> Empowerment of one gender is impossible without disempowering the other.

Bullshit.

What a man achieves in his life (his "empowerment") is driven by himself alone.

There are already obstacles to overcome in any thing you pursue, whether you're a man or a woman.

You don't need to invent artificial obstacles or barriers for men to "empower" yourself. It doesn't work that way.

I'll prove it.

You want to lose weight, but you've hit a stopping point you can't push past despite everything you do. So you bake high calorie treats and give them to all your freinds, thus making them fatter. The playing field is even! But in reality you didn't achieve your goal.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

"The human species cannot continue to exist without women." True, for what it's worth.

But the implied corrolary, that it can continue without men, is only true for a certain (untested) value of "the human species".

I'm not saying that men can't be exterminated. I'm saying there's been no testing and is no evidence of what would follow if that happened, even to the question of whether the species would survive more than one or two generations beyond.

Re: Men are obsolete

[iamhassi]

We do not need women, one woman is born with thousands of eggs ready for harvesting and

Re: Men are obsolete

[iamhassi]

We have been growing babies outside the womb for 30 years and every woman is born with thousands of eggs ready for harvesting http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...

Re:Men are obsolete

[epyT-R]

I never said that women played no part. It was and largely still is the men who are the interfaces between society and the environment.. They do the majority of the scut work required, and, it's the women who selected the men for breeding based on their abilities. Since I don't see them encouraging girls to line up at the coal mines like they do for management, and that feminists have trouble acknowledging anything positive about men or mens' contributions, I don't buy the claims made by feminists that their movement is about equality for everyone... Identity politics like this are definitely routed in left wing politics.

Re: Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a citation. That's just another pundit (in this case a women) repeating the same myths and making the same, unsubstantiated accusations.

Likewise for the next poster's links.

I'm not a feminist, let alone a militant feminist. But much like the Black Power movement, I can understand where these people are coming from based solely on the vitriol of the reactionaries who rail against them.

Weak evidence

[manu0601]

While I find interesting the idea that lesser testosterone is required for cooperation, my opinion is that the path to that conclusion is rather weak.

They studied testosterone-induced strong features in skulls, observed they vanished as cooperation raised, and concluded that testosterone must have lowered as cooperation increased.

But correlation is not causation. Another explanation could be that as cooperation increased, fights decreased, and hence the need for strong skull features.Testosterone could have remained at steady level while its effect on skulls lowered.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Bengie]

You should define what you mean by "woman" or "man". There are men with XX chromosomes, and I don't mean transgender or hermaphrodite. Fully functional with no defects or issues, except missing one gene that allows their sperm to swim, but that's one Y to X gene movement away. It will be interesting to define man and women if we all became XX and the only difference was gene expression to control hormones during fetal development.

If the pool of men is drastically reduces, we run a stronger chance of a monoculture waiting for the next pandemic. Children, especially women, who grow up without a father figure have a much greater risk of confidence issues, which can drastically aspect every aspect of their life, and a slew of other psychological problems. Technically we could get by without men to some degree, but it would probably be detrimental.

Re:Men are obsolete

[mtthwbrnd]

That's a pity because women like to be admired, and men love tits. Unless they all become lesos, they better keep us around.

Re:Men are obsolete

[mtthwbrnd]

" Long before the sperm bank is depleted, female scientists should be able to perfect human ova-fusion [ieet.org], which is already working in mice."

Why bother to pay for an expensive sperm bank? I have the perfect sperm delivery system in my hands right now which I am willing to allow them to use at no more cost than an "oh, baby, you were fantastic" at the end of the minute.

Re:Men are obsolete

[mtthwbrnd]

"which would be an evolutionary dead end. "

Who cares if it is an "evolutionary dead end". The goal would be to maintain the population with the option of increasing it, not to make the population evolve.

Re:Men are obsolete

[epyT-R]

No, I never said that men did everything, nor did I imply it.

I have no issue with coexisting. I do have issue with groups using government to provide privileges to them at my financial/social expense based on the very attributes they claim I use to judge them. I have no issue with equality of opportunity either, but feminists need to realize that if they want equal seating at the trough, they need to be willing to help when it's time to fill it, and when it's time to clean it. No shortcuts or incentives that aren't also offered to everyone else. Her body, her right, her choice? Fine by me, but that also means her responsibility. No using the baby to rope daddy in for an easy meal ticket (or just to stick it to him), at least, not without a signed contract/marriage license. When I bring this up, white knights and most women fly into defensive shitstorms, but the reality is that if women want equality in the eyes of men, they have to give up the expectation of chattel privilege and we need to strip the lobbied-for favoritism out. Affirmative action law and policies must die.

The last 40 years of feminism have made women the most privileged class in western society. Everything is now modeled, shaped, spindled, folded, and mutilated to benefit and cater to them. Thus, nowadays, when women put on melodramas about some guy looking at them in a hallway, or asking them to coffee at work, and then claim they have to set up buddy systems or demand 'safe spaces' as a result, it's really hard for me to take them seriously. It would be a laughable joke if it wasn't also so toxic to men, and western society's long term prospects. Women today just abuse the system to gain leverage in whatever spaces they're in because they know they can get away with it, and it sullies the reputation of those few women who really were assaulted or discriminated against.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

why not just keep a minimum breeding stock of boys and off them after they hit age 20?

Because, even with the development of mechanical equipment, men are still useful for heavy lifting work. However, you are quite right, most of the drones could be castrated with only the best stock reserved for breeding purposes. I think 20 is a little harsh, they would be fit to the task until at least 24!

reduce the population of men to 10% or so

Probably 30% of the population would be more workable, with perhaps only a quarter of those reserved for breeding.

Happily however the general population is starting to go very sour indeed on feminism, and I would hope to see the final end of the religion within my lifetime.

Dream on hater.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am not saying men should be exterminated."

Lol, let me get this straight...you want to remove the male half of a species ...

Nope, you didn't get it straight.

Ancient history

[iamacat]

A better question is what testosterone level increases one's chances of passing on the genes TODAY. And the answer seems to be clear. Maybe evolutionary pendulum swung too far and the nature is trying to compensate.

Re:Men are obsolete

[sillybilly]

Seriously, by the time of Alien, 3 billion years from now, humans, or whatever you wanna call them, will have ditched mammalian wombs, and go for external eggs instead, and men will have disappeared, or at least shrunk to the status of the males of a beehive, where they get tossed around as soon as the queen collects a good dose of sperm in her storage reservoir, and keeps the sperm alive like that for years. And by the way reproductive duties will have been specialized by the females too, as highly social insects are more powerful than individual insects, and proliferate as a society, and highly social also means specialized, as in born to be a soldier ant, queen ant, worker ant, male drone, etc., and only the queen reproduces among the females. Humans, or whatever you wanna call these creatures 3 billion years from now that descend from them, will have only selected members born to reproduce, even though all others will feel the urge. Even in a well structured and well functioning wolf pack, only the alpha wolves reproduce, and the rest sit by and watch them do it, like cuckolds do in some porn.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past, the militant kind wanted men reduced in population, made subservient to women, or just outright used as slaves or eliminated. ...

And yet this male sexual fantasy still persists to this day.

Re:Men are obsolete

[ayesnymous]

The human species cannot continue to exist without women. Men, on the other hand, could be replaced with a sperm bank.

You sure you can't replace women with an egg bank? They have those, you know.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

And if your sperm bank is destroyed you go extinct.

Re: Men are obsolete

[O('_')O_Bush]

Patriarchy bogeyman. How convenient.

wtf is up with the posts about feminists ?

[cats-paw]

these posts about feminists wanting to eliminate the male of the species is at the same time the funniest and scariest stuff i think i've ever seen on slashdot.

Re:Men are obsolete

[whereiswaldo]

Men don't lament about not having power. If they want power, they _take it_. By force if necessary. Until women understand that asking for power does not result in _real_ power, they will play second fiddle to men.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Capsaicin]

mmmm... no. That is a no true scotsman fallacy

And your exclusive focus on the "the militant kind" is a strawman fallacy. Welcome to the club.

I have yet to know any woman who would eliminate, reduce or otherwise alter the proportion of men (already the minority); not my mother, my current or any previous partners or any other feminist I've known. None, zero, zilch. Where are all these women who frighten you so?

Today, [the militant kind of feminist who wanted "men reduced in population, made subservient to women, or just outright used as slaves or eliminated"] express that same misandry by pushing policies supporting that mentality in education, media programming, civil law, criminal law, and, are now making/funding their presence in subcultures, like technology and gaming.

Yup that's it, girls who want to write games or watch three dimensional female characters on TV are just exactly that kind of militant misandric feminists. Mary Daly eat your heart out!. Your insecurity, and that of the many other boys here, borders on the paranoid. Just grow a pair mate!

Re: Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

I've only ever heard men suggest that "militant feminists" want to get rid of men.

If you look hard enough you can find someone who says anything, even a woman advocating getting rid of men. And then all the cunt-hating 1users who can't find a girl friend or compete with the girls at college can recycle it and paint any woman with a brain as a man hater. What a bunch of misogynist fags!

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

And if your sperm bank is destroyed you go extinct.

That's why the MRSBs.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG! Someone has fantasy I do not share. Let's kill them!

its the other way around

[Anonymous Coward]

Lower testosterone followed civilization. If you got one alpha male that doesn't cooperate in society the other weaker males will gang up on him and kill him. So bye bye high testosterone alpha males.

Re: Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

We do not need women

Speak for yourself there dude!

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG! Someone has fantasy I do not share. Let's kill them!

Sorry, they don't want to be enslaved, castrated or killed by us. They want that from gorgeous 6' tall large-breasted leather-clad Amazon goddesses (... easy on the killing and castration thx). Back into your box gimp!

And yet :

[aepervius]

"It has been empirically shown that boys who had a history of high physical aggression, from age 6 to 12, were found to have lower testosterone levels at age 13 compared with boys with no history of high physical aggression. The former were also failing in school and were unpopular with their peers. Both concurrent and longitudinal analyses indicate that testosterone levels were positively associated with social success rather than with physical aggression"

Which put a crimp in "testosterone is baaaad".

Re:And yet :

[war4peace]

Yeah, when you limit aggression to "physical only".
Social success, at least in the last century, more specifically in developed countries, usually involves the participant being able to "step on dead bodies" on a figurative level to succeed. I'd venture to say a high level of testosterone reduces empathy but in a more cunning way.
A history of high physical aggression makes one succeed on an immediate scale (beat that dude, take his candy) but has no long term results. On the other hand, being able to wait (befriend that guy, hang out together, manipulate his relationship with that hot blonde, get the hot blonde) yields long term positive results.

In other words, what you're saying has nothing to do with how testosterone impacts a person's lifestyle. Rather, what you're saying is impacted by other traits (education, character buildup, social interactions).

And then there was Grey's Anatomy

[gelfling]

A world of chickness where all the men are women and all the women are insane children.

More left wing "science"

[Anonymous Coward]

These goofy studies come out from time to time. It makes the liberal feminists feel good about themselves. It's kind of like the Academy Awards where those in the industry celebrate themselves. Self serving stuff.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Nephandus]

Funny, when they play their fiddle, the great majority of men proudly dance to their tune. Most men's power is spoken for by another. This was always so. Men tend not to lament they're tools who are too ashamed admit it or so mindfucked to be proud of it.

Re: Men are obsolete

[ganjadude]

there is a difference between feminism, and militant feminism, similar to how there is islam, and extremist islam. Sure the number of militant feminism will be smaller than the entire group, but i was being very specific on who i am speaking about

Re:Men are obsolete

[ganjadude]

you are conflating feminism with militant feminism, I was very clear in my argument about who i was talking about

Re:Men are obsolete

[supercrisp]

I study feminism. I don't know where you are getting your historical information, but it's inaccurate. Yes, there were the nuts and extremists, like Valerie Solanas. There were and are women who hypothesize that patriarchal behaviors--which are distinct from or are a subset of male behaviors--are bad for humanity. And there are many, many other lines of thought from utopian free-love to men-are-bad. And stuff off in other directions. After a lot of study, I personally decided that the majority of feminist thought was positive for humanity, including men like myself. You can dismiss that as thought-crime, or you can do more reading. That's a bit of work, and it IS comfortable, isn't it, to have a scapegoat or a villain on which to hang all your troubles?

No people no problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Falling trees would disagree.

humans have muscle gowth suppressor

[peter303]

Myostation, whihc makes them a fifth as strong as other apes the weight. It is thought this diverted metabolic resources to the brain and running. Undergorund chemists are seeking to neutralize of this statin to improve athletes. Medical scientists hopign to stop muscle wasting in dystropy and old people.

Re:Men are obsolete

[brxndxn]

My initial impression of articles like this are to make readers feel good about being effeminate out-of-shape doughboys that comply with authority and never think about the obvious inconsistencies and corruptions of society. It's just like the 'food pyramid' that says people should eat a diet rich in stuff that makes you fat (carbohydrates) while de-emphasizing the importance of proteins (expensive, scarce relatively).

Let's go ahead and blame the hormone that makes men muscular and strong and act like docility is a positive trait. If you've ever been in a room full of powerful people - men and women - there is a hell of a lot of energy flowing around and you can feel it. I bet commanding women like Hillary Clinton have more testosterone flowing than most men.

There is nothing to be proud about physical or mental weakness. Weakness is a choice - just like cooperation. It is an error in reasoning to blame testosterone as a hinderance to civilization - correlation does not imply causation.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Capsaicin]

you are conflating feminism with militant feminism, I was very clear in my argument about who i was talking about

It was indeed very clear whom you were talking about. However conflating the "near 100% of _real_ feminists" with "the militant kind," --of a variety which have hardly existed since some mythical 70s --was rather central the central theme of your reply. Valerie Solanas is dead dude, relax.

Rock Martha Stewart

[Anonymous Coward]

Arts and crafts became popular as testosterone declined, giving rise to Rock Martha Stewart:

[ Picks louse from armpit bush, holds up for camera ] Tired same old pit bug taste? Try leaf.
[ Sprinkles pinch of random leaf on louse, eats ] It good thing.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Lord Lemur]

Until there is some external pressure. Ice Age, Gamma Ray Burst, Super Bug.

Re: Men are obsolete

[timofait]

Because I achieved something, I did so "alone"? Any obstacle=every obstacle? Maybe not... Meanwhile, what is your reaction to the original "testosterone factor" story. The question of the "sudden" emergence of society in the long-established human population is a tantalizing mystery. "Ancient aliens"? Haha. This testosterone hypothesis implicitly give all the credit for civilization to our gender...so that's a Good Thing, eh?

night time potty

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, civilization boomed as men found they needed to go potty more and more in the middle of the night...

I Call BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Grad student should fail. Remember the Nazis measuring skulls to prove Jews were one step from apes.

Re: Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious troll is obvious

Re: Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you gay?

Re:Men are obsolete

[LienRag]

In the days before feminism, I'm not sure men ever suggested that women be exterminated as a gender.

Apparently, they did nearly that in some regions of Germany during the Malleus Malefircarum witchhunt: young men there had to travel outside these regions to find women to marry, as most of the ones in their own neighbourhood had be burned.

Re:Men are obsolete

[KamikazeSquid]

Why on earth would you ever encourage ANYONE to line up for work in a coal mine?

Re:Men are obsolete

[KamikazeSquid]

"War on men" ... right. As if we, as men, have to face harassment and discrimination that is even comparable to the daily bullshit that most women have to deal with.

This is what I'm talking about, in case you don't know: http://www.robot-hugs.com/harassment/

makes NO sense

[Optali]

Other apes are social too. And testosterone has nothing to do with cooperation or non-cooperation. We are talking about simians here, we are APES for $deitie's sake, not about bovines. I would understand the testosterone point if we were talking about some sort of big badass bulls or moose but not SIMIANS.

Have the brilliant "scientists" who cooked up this study forgotten the gorilla's or chimps?

Dafuq mate?

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Identity politics like this are definitely routed in left wing politics.

I think you mean "rooted", and "right" wing politics, as it a very objective observation that identity based politics are created by propagandists in right wing think tanks to take advantage over the less intelligent in our population. As you have demonstrated, it works extremely well.

Re:Men are obsolete

[micahraleigh]

I don't see any relationship between function and value.

I like it when women have long hair and paint their nails. What do these features accomplish? What purpose do they solve? They don't. But I still like them.

I like listening to Moby, the Moody Blues, Modest Mouse, etc. What purpose does this music serve to me? It doesn't serve a purpose. But I like it.

See Kierkegaard, Nietchze, Unamo, etc.

If technology gets to the point where babies no longer need human wombs, that will in no way reduce the value I place on the women I know.

There are a ton of men and a ton of women who value themselves based on their masculinity or femininity, when neither role gives them an individual identity or any kind of meaning.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Vitriol Angst]

Dude, stop quoting from the History that Never Happened.

Outside of a few bad science fiction movies, or perhaps in enclaves where someone snuck in a listening device to a group of angry divorced women -- I've never heard of this populist movement of "getting rid of men." There's no plan, there's no conspiracy, there's no secret lair with volcano mountain hiding the space ship. It's not a factor and to be threatened by this is to start wearing double anti-unicorn underwear. Sure it works -- because there are no Unicorns.

Also on that list is Liberal Terrorism in America. One off-duty security guard got accidentally killed when not targeted by the Weather Underground. What are we at, 250000 to one for proportionality?

Re:Men are obsolete

[Some_Llama]

"Why on earth would you ever encourage ANYONE to line up for work in a coal mine?"

Do you hear anyone complaining that girls are under-represented in coal mines like they do about high paying low physical exertion jobs?

I'm pretty sure that's the analogy here. do you not understand analogies? it's used to compare two things that are similar but different so to maximize the point in the comparison that they both share but might be overlooked. In this case it's feminists demanding partial equality in jobs but masquerading their complaint as demanding full equality in jobs.

Re:Men are obsolete

[ganjadude]

If a woman says that holding the door for them is the same as rape, thats militant feminism, its more out there than you think, although still a smaller group. Yet for some reason like in everything else, the fringe become the spokesmen ...er..spokes people? I dont know whats not offensive anymore

Blacks have higher testosterone than whites

[mtthwbrnd]

Which may go a long way towards explaining why Blacks never built any significant civilisation in their lands.

"Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were statistically significant. Adjustment by analysis of covariance for time of sampling, age, weight, alcohol use, cigarette smoking, and use of prescription drugs somewhat reduced the differences. After these adjustments were made, blacks had a 15% higher testosterone level and a 13% higher free testosterone level."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Also see:
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/race_evolution_behavior.pdf

Re:Men are obsolete

[KamikazeSquid]

You can't lump "feminists" together as a group and pretend like everyone who identifies as a feminist has exactly the same views on everything.

You're being completely sensationalist about this. Nobody is running around and demanding equal representation in dangerous, low-paying jobs because nobody in their right mind would ever encourage anyone to actively seek out a dangerous, low-paying job. Would you ever encourage your child, male OR female, to seek out a career as a coal miner? No, you wouldn't, because that would be stupid. Do you not understand that? Or are you just being willfully dense so you can stick to your completely misguided point? Furthermore, do you even KNOW any coal miners? Do you know ANYONE in your community who has ever even CONSIDERED the idea of being a coal miner? Because unless you live in a rural area, I highly doubt that you do.

Besides all of that, "feminists" do generally advocate for the idea that men and women should be regarded as equally capable of performing most tasks in most jobs with the proper training, so "feminists" would generally be supportive of a woman who wanted to pursue a job as a coal miner, or a construction worker, or a crab fisher, or any other number of traditionally "male" jobs. Do you actually think that "coal miners" would take kindly to a woman who wanted to do that kind of work? Would a woman even be considered for the job? Or would she be immediately rejected because of systematic sexism within that particular profession or working environment? It isn't some kind of privilege for women that they are generally considered too weak, frail or delicate to perform those kinds of jobs. It's benevolent sexism at best.

More evidence

[mtthwbrnd]

This study may go a long way towards explaining why Blacks never built any significant civilisation in their lands.

"Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were statistically significant. Adjustment by analysis of covariance for time of sampling, age, weight, alcohol use, cigarette smoking, and use of prescription drugs somewhat reduced the differences. After these adjustments were made, blacks had a 15% higher testosterone level and a 13% higher free testosterone level."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov]

Also see:
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/race_evolution_behavior.pdf

Re:Men are obsolete

[Capsaicin]

If a woman says that holding the door for them is the same as rape, thats militant feminism

I would call it 'self-parodic' rather than 'militant' feminism, but whatever we call it, it is some distance removed from a SCUM-like gendercide.

Yet for some reason like in everything else, the fringe become the spokesmen ...er..spokes people? I dont know whats not offensive anymore

The usual gender-neutral term would be 'spokesperson' in singular and 'spokespeople' in plural, correct! If you are referring to a particular woman or man, honouring their individuality by using 'spokeswoman' and 'spokesman' respectively, would also be acceptable usage (and in IMHO preferable, though I'm in a minority there).

The interesting question is who decides to elevate the fringe (here "like in everything else") to this role. It's a little like selecting the most out-there young Earth creationist as a foil for one's attacks on Christianity in general.

Re:Men are obsolete

[RockDoctor]

This leftist utopian crap needs to die.

Why do you consider it "leftist"?

• Because you disagree with it?
• Because the decline of male absolute supremacy parallels the rise of thought that things other than the pursuit of [harems ; money ; prestige] might just possibly be of significance?
• Because you consider the pursuit of anything other than your own blind bigoted self-interest to be reprehensible, foreign, or just plain against the word of (your) god?

Speaking as a geologist, you'd embarrass a dinosaur.

(Before you ask ... quick check : yes, I've still got two balls and dried semen on my dick from poking the wife last night. But coming inside a woman is doubtless an experience that doesn't lay in your past, or your future.)

Social Engineering?

[Anonymous Coward]

The study in question predates agriculture by 40,000 years.

Re:Men are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

And your exclusive focus on the "the militant kind" is a strawman fallacy.

As long as you're talking about people who exist, and describe their arguments properly, it *cannot* be a straw man.