TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ptr1492 Archive

View 0 posts and 89 comments by ptr1492 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

I thought exactly this! If we accept that the author's thesis is right then we have a moral obligation to prioritize men over women in healthcare.
/r/MensRights24/09/20 10:19 PM
6

it’s obvious men are in fact genetically superior. That's falling into the same trap as the author, though. You cannot objectively say one is genetically better. If you have a preference, that's fine, but it's not science.
/r/MensRights24/09/20 10:17 PM
2

In which interviews have you seen this indicated?
/r/MensRights24/09/20 10:01 PM
2

It’s rank nonsense. Seems to be a shameless and sensationalist way to sell books. He’s basically just shoehorning his own pet definition of “superiority” and applying it generally. As someone else mentioned, the findings are not necessarily invalid but are cherry-picked to fit a narrative. For instance, we know that being the heterogametic sex (males, being XY, in the mammalian case) comes with some costs in terms of mortality and morbidity. That’s basic biology that everyone usually gets from g…
/r/MensRights24/09/20 08:40 PM
4

Actually, because of genomic imprinting and the fact that essential sperm-forming genes are on the Y chromosome, XX females cannot reproduce with their own cells. For them to do so, a complex procedure requiring a erasure of the imprints, and then a reprogramming of the ovum to resemble a sperm cell, has to be done (to get the imprints erased, modified offspring are created and new DNA extracted). This was done with mice a few years ago with a very low success rate (2 viable embryos out of ~200 …
/r/MensRights30/06/16 06:17 PM
3

There is some evidence for that in mammals. You are probably refering to this study.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 06:09 PM
2

Humans were never asexual and neither were any of our ancestors (until you perhaps get to prokaryotes). All asexual animals are relatively recent (some exceptions include some invertebrates like bdelloids, a type of rotifer) and don't produce many lineages in evolutionary time.
/r/MensRights30/06/16 06:02 PM
4

Most embryologists just call the state "undifferentiated" or "bi-potential", but yeah one has to develop into either a male or a female, you don't just start out as one. Even if it were true, the conclusion that men are "wrecked" by hormones is just rhetoric and a non-sequitur. It's just as valid to say that men become "the good thing" though transformation into a superior organism. I'm not going to argue that but it's not any less valid an interpretation if we grant the truth value of the devel…
/r/MensRights30/06/16 05:58 PM
0

Some biology, of course. It still does not make the fellow an expert in developmental biology. Otherwise he would be a developmental biologist. One cannot be an expert in everything.
/r/MensRights22/06/16 04:34 PM
1

Yes, like I said it's not categorical. Think statistics. Males are five times more likely to develop autism.
/r/MensRights22/06/16 04:32 PM
1

I have to correct you here. The hypothesis is not that a male brain is "an autistic female brain" but that autism represents an "extreme" expression of male-typical brain activity (eg, systemizing ability), whereas empathizing represents female-typical brain activity. Also, these patterns are statistical in nature and do not represent categorical differences.
/r/MensRights21/06/16 04:47 PM
2

Yeah, some of the assumptions made previously about development are not exactly correct. See this article for a good review.
/r/MensRights21/06/16 04:42 PM
1

A PhD in anthropology =/= expert in developmental biology.
/r/MensRights21/06/16 04:40 PM
3

He's not lying, he's just operating on a sort of outdated understanding of development. It's only in the last few decades has it been discovered specific gene networks that activate female development. People can't be experts on everything and keep up with the literature in all fields. Not everyone has nefarious intentions.
/r/MensRights21/06/16 08:14 AM
3

Seems like you have already asked this question before somewhere? Nipples form on males because the sexes emerge from an undifferentiated state that has already developed characteristics of both sexes. Females, for instance, have a rudimentary prostate gland. The reason some people say men are genetically "modified" is because it was thought that a fetus would default to female unless the SRY gene on the Y chromosome kicked in at the right time. But recently this has been discovered to not be ex…
/r/MensRights21/06/16 08:10 AM
1

Men have larger brains even when controlling for body size. And brain size does moderately correlate with intelligence although this may not be so relevant with respect to sex differences since there are differences with respect to brain organization and complexity that may compensate for the size difference.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 03:40 AM
1

Yep, very poor reasoning on his part. His claim is also false.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 12:35 PM
2

Montagu was popular as a humanist academic (studied in social anthropology) in the 50s-60s, but he's old hat now. In fact, I'd dare say he is somewhat of a joke given that he had some pretty absurd and politically-motivated views. He didn't even believe that humans had instincts, for instance, which is an absurd notion that no evolutionary scientist takes seriously.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 05:28 AM
2

I wouldn't say that many are. While I don't doubt that they exist, I suspect those views are relatively extreme and rare among actual working scientists. I'm a biologist and don't encounter any misandry at work or when I read any scientific publication. There is no grand theory or profound scientific idea that proposes any such thing. In fact, many of my colleagues think certain academic strands of feminism are a joke. I suspect the kind of thing you're talking about is much more common in the s…
/r/MensRights16/06/16 05:21 AM
2

Stop with this "boys are just modified/defective girls" crap. Indeed, it's a massive oversimplification/misunderstanding of a very complex sex determination process. Nevertheless, even if it were the case that mammalian embryos somehow switched from female to male in the womb, or that "males are an adaptation of the female," this could provide just as much evidence for the superiority of males as it does females, since one could just argue that males are modified to become better, and females be…
/r/MensRights14/06/16 12:46 AM
1

against biological determinism Except the book argues that biological differences between the sexes makes one "superior" to the other.......... ....not only man's equal, but his superior. So.....they are equal and superior?? You can tell whoever wrote this summary doesn't excel at logical thinking.
/r/MensRights14/06/16 12:38 AM
1

No, that's not possible because Montagu died in 1999. You might be thinking of The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, which wouldn't be surprising since pretty much everyone at some point was on there back then. Also, Montagu was respected and known for his humanism (interestingly, he was strongly against circumcision), not so much his "scientific" work.
/r/MensRights14/06/16 12:30 AM
1

Ehh... I'm not so sure about that. Ashley was a male name for a time in Britain, but it's not very common anymore.
/r/MensRights14/06/16 12:27 AM
3

Well, to be precise, the male advantage in physical strength and muscle mass is most likely a consequence of sexual selection (intrasexual competition most of all) than of hunting.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 05:21 PM
2

Really bad understanding of evolution, to be honest. Male bodies are evolved to deal with male adaptive problems, and vice-versa. It's superior to have the male adaptations if you're a male animal, and to have the female adaptations if you're a female animal. If males had the female adaptations, they would not be as successful as a biological organism. This is really basic evo 101.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 05:16 PM
1

Haha, when I saw the book was written by Ashley Montagu, I wasn't really surprised. What else do you expect from one of the silliest 20th century radical anthropologists? To be frank, this is a guy who's notorious in the scientific community for being a political hack. He didn't really make any substantial contributions to his field, and I don't know anyone who takes his work seriously except ideologues. It's not surprising that some feminists cling to this bullshit. Keep in mind this is a guy w…
/r/MensRights13/06/16 05:13 PM
2

I'm always amazed by the lack of research these people do when crafting such nonsense. Almost every study that claims that increased female representation leads to greater performance has been conducted by advocacy groups and consulting firms. Conversely, studies done by economists and academics with the proper statistical controls finds that gender diversity has no or even a negative relationship with firm performance. For a good commentary on the gaps between advocacy and good science, see thi…
/r/MensRights26/05/16 05:27 PM
2

Chris Ryan's work is highly suspect. Also, bonobos aren't exactly peaceable or even female dominated. I recommend reading this critique and well as part 2 by an anthropologist which discusses this very topic.
/r/MensRights15/05/16 02:00 AM
1

You're right, many foraging men do provide resources to their families, but the general point is that hunting is also about status and increasing one's mate value rather than merely a method of subsistence. The fact that this idea has caused some people to develop or strengthen negative views about men is their problem. I do not interpret this information as a "negative" about men. In any event, people's reaction to a claim has no bearing on the truth value of that claim. Facts are facts regardl…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 02:21 PM
1

Yes, some people will use whatever they can get to denigrate others. It doesn't make it valid or true. I work in a population genetics lab and have read tons of literature and let me assure you, there is no "theory" taken seriously by anyone that proposes that males are a genetic "accident." It flies in the face of evolution. Maleness evolved and is actively selected for because as a strategy it is successful, and it is present in almost every animal, plant, and protist species on earth. By defi…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 06:48 AM
1

Just like how some feminists see "misogyny" and "sexism" everywhere and in everything, I think you might be reading too much into rather innocuous passages. One thing I noticed about Diamond is he enjoys thought experiments and throwing out ideas, even if they turn out not to be the greatest ones or contrary to established opinions. He often discusses at length arguments he doesn't even personally agree with. While it's true that the chapter is a little provocative in its suggestions (as is a lo…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 06:33 AM
1

If it was ever used in that research at all, then I would argue it would be. I could just as easily call maleness the "developed state," or the "active state," or the "evolved state," and it wouldn't necessarily conflict with the basic premise of femaleness as a "default", though those would be heavily value-laden terms and would cause people to freak out.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 04:49 AM
1

CWBECK, I'm noticing a recurrent theme in all the questions you keep asking on this topic, and it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding. Your biggest hangup seems to be that you have the lingering misconception that there is some temporal separation in the evolution of male and female body forms, which is not true at all. There cannot be an "original template" because humans evolved from sexually dimorphic ancestors who also evolved from sexually dimorphic ancestors and so on for at least ~550…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 04:32 AM
1

It's not really true though, as I told you already in a previous comment on an earlier post you made. Both male and female phenotypes have to develop from an undifferentiated state, so you cannot actually "start off" as female. Saying that a fetus will default to female in the absense of SRY is merely the equivalent of saying that a fetus will develop as female unless it develops as male. This is not really a very profound or meaningful statement. But assuming it was true, how would this mean th…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 04:20 AM
1

Yes, that's true. There are no genes unique to females, but males do have some unique genes that females do not. And additionally, there is roughly equal gene expression between the sexes due to various mechanisms. It's ultimately the phenotype and gene expression that's really important, not simply looking at the genotype and counting how many genes/chromosomes there are.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 04:11 AM
1

As a biologist myself I honestly do not know of any really misandrist/misogynistic biologists that base their work on such ideas. If they exist they are fringe. There are some anthropologists that are/were misandrists, just like there were (are?) many anthropologists that were/are misogynists. Paul Broca, founder of the eminent Anthropological Society, used to write based on his research that women were, in just about every important way, inferior. So it's not unheard of. Same is true of racism.…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 03:30 AM
1

Yeah, you did. Happens to me too sometimes :)
/r/MensRights14/05/16 03:25 AM
1

Diamond simply suggested that if men really wanted to lactate and breastfeed babies, they could take hormones to allow them to do so since the basic physiological structure is there. Also, the idea that some men "show off" with large-game hunting has some truth to it. A lot of it relates to mating success because if a man can share his returns with the greater tribe (rather than his immediate family) he gains in status and thus in mates. He argues in the book that women bring in more overall cal…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 03:25 AM
1

CWBECK, I'm pretty sure I've answered this question of yours on another thread. What the poster you responded to means is that femaleness exists only in relation to maleness. Femaleness is defined simply as producing larger gametes in an anisogamous population. No males then no females. The whiptail represents a secondary loss of sexuality where eggs develop into zygotes and thus offspring sans fertilization. It is not related at all to the evolution of the two sexes.
/r/MensRights14/05/16 03:06 AM
1

The fact that Turner's syndrome individuals even have a phenotype at all is evidence that a single X chromosome is not sufficient for full female functionality (in the most crucial evolutionary aspect, reproductive function, they are seriously impaired). Just because male-specific developmental pathways require activation or virilization factors does not necessarily mean the "original" template must be female. Male and female forms evolved long before such mechanisms even existed. We are likely …
/r/MensRights14/05/16 02:57 AM
1

...some of the genes on the X are unisex in terms of making proteins necessary for things like immune function, muscle development and the creation of synapses.... There are no corollaries for these necessary genes on the Y. They've been shed over time. This is a generally true statement for most genes on the X, but I would point out that there are shared genes on both the X and Y (~12-14) that are involved in essential functions. These are genes related to functioning in the heart, brain, liver…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 02:55 AM
1

Yeah, but I don't remember Sykes ever directly saying in his book that the Y was "inferior" (whatever that means) to the X, just that it's relatively gene-poor and full of accumulated junk (which has turned out not to be entirely accurate, but was a reasonable assumption at the time). Those terms aren't really appropriate for comparison since the Y is a specialized segment of DNA. I didn't seem to get the sense that he necessarily implied that either, but I could be mistaken. Instead he argues t…
/r/MensRights14/05/16 02:47 AM
1

CWBECK, I remember you from a previous post on a similar topic. I am a geneticist and I read Sykes' book way back when it was released. Keep in mind that his book is over 12 years old, and this isn't actually his field of study. He primarily looks at genetic genealogical reconstruction. His book, about 95% of it, is pretty good. He chronicles the history of sex chromosome studies, talks about how mitochondria evolved, gives interesting descriptions of several family histories in Europe in terms …
/r/MensRights14/05/16 02:10 AM
4

#9. There is considerable evidence that multi-tasking significantly decreases task performance for most people, so claiming this behavior as an “advantage” is strange indeed. Results regarding gender differences are mixed, because there are studies that show that men are better at multitasking. The inconsistencies are probably explainable by differences in how the ability is measured, but once again the author is guilty of cherry-picking and confirmation bias. #10. Gender differences in the unde…
/r/MensRights02/05/16 04:07 AM
3

Okay, I’ll bite. I normally don’t waste my time on click-bait nonsense like this, especially on ThoughtCatalog where pretty much anyone can post whatever garbage they want, but I’m going to examine this article because I’m bored tonight. It’s not really worthy of a rebuttal. In fact, some might argue that a rebuttal is inappropriate, but meh… Maybe this post will provide some ammo when one hears these claims repeated elsewhere in more meaningful outlets. I’ve spent a lot of time reading literatu…
/r/MensRights02/05/16 04:05 AM
1

Yes, but it's comparatively rare in vertebrates. Snakes and lizards are reptiles, not mammals.
/r/MensRights20/04/16 12:47 AM
2

Sure, unless early humans were somehow "asexual," which is absurd and refuted by the fact that no mammal is capable of asexuality. This is due to various genetic mechanisms present in mammals, specifically epigenetic imprinting at the gametogenesis level which makes paternal and maternal genes critically important and both obligatory for a developing embryo. Even if humans were by some absurd reason somehow asexual, there is no guarantee that they would have been able to survive the lack of gene…
/r/MensRights20/04/16 12:27 AM
2

Unless these "theories" are from prominent researchers in that area, published in the peer-reviewed literature, and has a significant quantity of adherents within the field (in other words not one person's pet idea), then as a non-expert you can be safe in ignoring them and doubting their validity.
/r/MensRights20/04/16 12:19 AM
2

The only sense in which women have some responsibility in "creating" men is in the realm of sexual selection, in which females can prefer traits in males that are related to reproductive success (eg, the peacocks tail). In humans, males also select traits in females so in a sense males "created" the modern woman (think breasts, curves, etc).
/r/MensRights20/04/16 12:14 AM
2

Genetically, yes, an embryo is either XX or XY at conception (not counting rare disorders that disrupt the configuration).
/r/MensRights20/04/16 12:11 AM
2

I don't understand what you're talking about. How so? "Disposability" is a concept rooted in the fact that males have a much greater reproductive variance than females (in most species, not all). This means that many males will go mateless while a few males can monopolize matings. So male reproduction must fit through the bottleneck created by female availability. Many societies have used this fact to treat males as "disposable" since population growth is more sensitive to the number of females …
/r/MensRights20/04/16 12:08 AM
1

And, pray tell, what magnificent and omniscient moral agent is calculating and deciding an individual's "value to society"??
/r/MensRights19/04/16 11:57 PM
1

I agree that it is bunk but I fail to see what that has to do with an individual's moral worth.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 11:56 PM
2

I have to quibble with you a bit. Most biologsts would not say that prokaryotes are male or female. And amoebae are eukaryotes that have sex. "Reproductive potential" is not what defines sexes, because males technically "reproduce" all the time - they make millions of sperm via spermatogenesis, which is cell division. Keep in mind humans are multi-cellular and so are really a colony of single cells that can divide themselves, males and females included. What males do not do is directly produce o…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 11:51 PM
2

I'll help you out here. I've posted this elsewhere as well, but here it is: First, no sex difference is noticeable in the early gonad until about 6 weeks of early embryonic life. This sexually indifferent state persists until hormonal signals coax the bipotential gonads to develop into ovaries or testes, which can happen due to various mechanisms in various animals. In humans and other mammals, a gene called SRY on the Y chromosome initiates male development (by producing a protein that regulate…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 11:41 PM
2

Of course they do, just like every other bigot who uses science to justify their bigotry from homophobes to racists. Regardless of scientific facts, "superiority" is a value judgement and cannot exist in the abstract. It is only relevant to specific contexts. Men are superior in some ways and women in others. Evolutionary speaking, male and female sexes evolved adaptations to deal with problems in the environment that are challenging for that sex. If you're a male animal, you're worse off evolut…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 11:35 PM
3

To be honest, CWBECK, I wouldn't put much stock into a dumb, random blog post on the internet. There are literally hundreds of pseudoscientific websites, journals, publications, etc that promote everything from the basic denial of evolution to anti-vaccine rhetoric - all dressed in spurious "scientific" language to make it sound plausible. The poster of that blog is clearly not learned in the scientific literature to make an informed opinion. It should be obvious to anyone who studies biology th…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 11:30 PM
3

The evolution of sex chromosomes have nothing to do with which sex "came first". Birds and some snakes use a ZZ/ZW system opposite of mammals in which females have the smaller sex chromosome. Did female birds evolve from male birds? This is an absurd argument. Male mammals have nipples for the same reason females have a rudimentary prostate gland. It's a pleiotropic effect of sex development, in which a sexually indifferent state (bi-potentiality) receives hormonal signals that coax the bipotent…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 11:19 PM
3

You seem to be a little confused. Not sure what you've been reading but I'm a biologist that studies this stuff. I've posted a version of the following elsewhere: Keep in mind that sex evolved ~600 mya to ~1 bya, way before the appearance of distinct sex chromosomes. Early asexuals are neither male nor female, and "sexes" are defined by the type of gamete made (eg, large or small). Also, the Y has lost genes due to loss of recombination, but the chromosome itself is simply a descendant of an anc…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 10:58 PM
1

Female is the default, the y chromosome is a mutation, prone to abnormalities. The high number of male geniuses and exceptional individuals is counterbalanced by the high number of male retards and genetic failures, one cannot address the positive biological facts while ignoring the negative without creating an inaccurate picture. Well, as a biologist, saying that a female body plan is the "default" (which is a taxon-specific mechanism in mammals) is really only a shorthand for a very complicate…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/16 06:27 PM
2

Sorry, didn't mean to sound snarky, just trying to put things into perspective. It's confusing when this information is relayed and as scientists we try communicate in ways that are clear since many misconceptions abound. Journalists usually don't help either, so it's not your fault.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/16 05:58 PM
1

Right, but mammals evolved from non-mammals, which were sexually dimorphic already, so it's relevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/16 05:55 PM
2

First, a technicality. We do not actually "begin as female" in the womb, that is a misunderstanding of the concept that a embryo will develop as female in absence of SRY (eg, by default). The early gonad is in fact bi-potential (eg, females have rudimentary prostate glands). Both the X and Y chromosomes are mutations (eg, evolved) from an ancestral pair of autosomes, just the Y evolved at a much faster rate due to purifying selection and has become smaller. Recessive mutations that affect males …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/16 05:39 PM
1

That link you posted is talking about the origins of the sex determination mechanism in mammals, not the origins of sex or male and female sexes. Sex evolved way earlier than a mere 300mya, and there were male and female forms in the Cambrian (~520mya). Early asexuals are neither male nor female, and "sex" is defined by the type of gamete made (eg, large or small), so your argument is senseless. Also, the Y has lost genes due to loss of recombination, but the chromosome itself is simply a descen…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/03/16 05:26 PM
2

As a biologist, I could probably shed some light on this. People say this because of an oversimplification and misunderstanding of old "female as default" paradigm. It's definitely not accurate to say that we "start off" female, as no sex difference is noticeable in the early gonad until about 6 weeks of early embryonic life. This sexually indifferent state persists until hormonal signals coax the bipotential gonads to develop into ovaries or testes, which can happen due to various mechanisms in…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 09:28 PM
2

This guy is just a rhetorical blowhard. He's obviously doing this for attention and to get an angry reaction. It's publicity gold, because he knows that denigrating men will sell in this messed up culture. According to most reviews I've read (the informative ones on amazon as well as editorial ones here and here), his book apparently is part total bullshit, part meaningless anecdote, part hyperbolic rhetoric, and part serious science (most of which have to do with data on hunter-gathers, his are…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 08:52 PM
2

You might want to look over this review of the book in the journal Evolutionary Psychological Science, as it's pretty critical. There's no paywall, it's free. There was another negative review in the Times Literary Supplement by a sociobiologist (or at least a sociobiologically-literate academic) that crapped on it pretty hard as well, but I can't remember the name. EDIT: Found it, it's by a Darwinian economist and a pdf is available free here.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 08:44 PM
2

One hint is that most asexually reproducing species are very small. They are also, in most cases, very recent. In most vertebrates (like whiptail lizards), they seem to be the result of inter-species hybridization events, which somehow cause meiosis to go wonky in females. The only case I know of a truly successful group of asexuals are the bdelloids, a type of rotifer that can dehydrate to avoid ecological hazards and absorb foreign DNA and incorporate it. So they're "cheaters". :p
/r/MensRights20/05/15 02:16 AM
1

So yes, you're correct that in certain species sexual dimorphism itself can be an advantage; however, that was more of a "using what's already there" (like the appendix). Not true at all. Specialization into different gametes didn't "just happen," it is an ESS that is created through disruptive selection acting on an isogamous population of similar gametes. There's a large body of mathematical theory that explains this.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 02:12 AM
1

Over time, this means species that reproduce sexually will out-compete those who don't. Like most biologists, I'm not convinced that group selection explains much. We are looking for the advantages sex confers to an individual's progeny, not "the species." What I mean is, the way sexual reproduction has to work is necessarily asymmetric. Not really true, though. Isogamous species (like many green algae such as Volvocales) are completely sexual and fuse identical gametes together. When colonies b…
/r/MensRights20/05/15 02:05 AM
-2

I disagree. The existence of sexual reproduction has been called the "queen" of evolutionary problems by some biologists. It's continued maintenance across taxa is certainly a huge evolutionary question, one that is still an active area of discussion. Everyone agrees that recombination shuffles genes in each generation, but it's still ongoing to try to explain why such variety necessarily compensates for the so-called "twofold cost." Obviously it does compensate, because it exists, but how? Ther…
/r/MensRights20/05/15 01:53 AM
1

And a feminist writing an entire article about why men aren't needed qualifies. I agree that the article's tone is snarky. As usual, the dumb journalists just cannot resist turning an interesting study into some click-bait fluffy foray into the gender wars. However, the premise of the study actually argues against the concept that men are not needed.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 01:42 AM
1

The sentence is talking about "males" generally, not men. What you say is true in our species and some others, but it's certainly true that in a great many species males do not provide any parental care.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 01:38 AM
1

Well, not exactly. The problem is that there is a two-fold fitness cost for females to produce sons, instead of only clonal daughters (lineage will grow at twice the rate). So why hasn't parthenogenesis (all-female asexuality that's seen in animals) supplanted sexual reproduction given the fitness advantage it has? So we can phrase it in a sense as "why do males continue to exist?" or "why are males necessary?" It's just a rhetorical question to highlight the mystery of sex, obviously sex is ser…
/r/MensRights19/05/15 03:55 AM
2

Yep, see my edit above.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 03:42 AM
1

Uhh, what's this article got to do with this???
/r/MensRights19/05/15 03:21 AM
1

Yeah, they removed the offensive stuff.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 03:16 AM
2

That's true in single-celled asexuals (like bacteria), but not with animals (ex. parthenogenesis). There are asexual species of whiptails, for instance, which all produce eggs that develop without fertilization. Therefore, since they make eggs they are all "female".
/r/MensRights19/05/15 03:06 AM
2

The science is good, sure -- the tone of the article is what people are complaining about. EDIT: Apparently they have removed the most offensive parts of the article. There was a paragraph in the beginning that compared men to children and said they were "annoying."
/r/MensRights19/05/15 03:04 AM
1

Well the article is just journalist click-bait but the science is just dealing with biological reproduction, nothing more.
/r/MensRights19/05/15 03:03 AM
2

No, it's not stupid to think that, but from what I know the development depends on the sex determination mechanism, which varies by taxa. Males are built by genes located all over the genome, the sry gene on the Y chromosome just activates them in a cascade. In birds, female development is what's activated and in absence of a sex chromosome bird embryos default to male. So interestingly, "Jurassic Park" actually got it backwards, and those dinosaur embryos, if they're anything like bird sex dete…
/r/MensRights23/03/15 08:37 PM
2

Ehhhh not really. Not vertebrate embryos, mammalian embryos yes. In birds, it's the opposite, as is the case in some reptiles (komodos). And some fish start as male and only turn into females later.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 05:33 PM
–

He's writing a book on this garbage. A lively, richly informed argument for the natural superiority of women from the acclaimed author of The Tangled Wing. There is a human genetic fluke that is surprisingly common, due to a change in a key pair of chromosomes. In the normal condition the two look the same, but in this disorder one is malformed and shrunken beyond recognition. The result is a shortened life span, higher mortality at all ages, an inability to reproduce, premature hair loss, and b…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 01:43 AM
4

Yeah, the thing about being "smarter" is a faulty assumption, especially since there's good data that intelligence or "smartness" isn't as important as many other factors (motivation, learning style, etc) to achieving good grades. Standardized tests, like the SAT, come closer to measuring cognitive ability than classroom grades, and boys do slightly better than girls on the tests. One of the authors of the APA study, Daniel Voyer, addressed this very point here. He makes it clear that intelligen…
/r/MensRights19/07/14 05:04 PM
3

My goodness, science journalism can often be just downright abysmal. The Y chromosome is not actually fundamental to maleness, and the genes that make maleness are found throughout the genome. Y carries some sperm producing genes and the SRY gene that flips the switch and causes a cascade of gene activation on other autosomes to induce male development, but the genes can move all around the genome. They aren't confined by necessity to just that chromosome. There are a multitude of ways to determ…
/r/MensRights24/04/14 11:10 PM
2

This is sort of a joke, right? Because it is completely wrong from a biological perspective.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 12:36 PM
2

Technically parthenogenesis is just the development of offspring from an unfertilized ovum. In whiptails, per the article, it is cloning because the females lay diploid eggs which essentially contain the mother's genome: the offspring are clones of the mother. In bees and other insects, it involves males developing from haploid eggs. Obviously parthenogenetic lizard species are not haploids.
/r/MensRights28/11/13 06:58 PM
3

Lol @ the NYT professional troll MoDo attempting to understand science. It's astounding how ignorant of biology this woman is. Was she not paying attention during Dr. Page's lecture? She had trouble understanding the difference between meiosis and parthenogenesis? Are you kidding? Parthenogenesis=cloning, meiosis=Genetic variation, evolution needs variation, so meiosis=good. Thus, we (and pretty much all complex vertebrates like mammals) need two sexes exchanging genes in order to survive. It pr…
/r/MensRights28/11/13 01:59 PM
24

Ridiculous. Saw a great, evidence-based comment in refutation of this nonsense by a female user, but it appears as though it's been deleted or is awaiting moderation because I can't find it anymore! Luckily I copied it: Stacy Morrow Here we go again with more bad research and fallacious post hoc reasoning about women on corporate boards. I've heard the same awful, disproven arguments repeated with such frequency that I'm going to provide references and quotes with the hope that maybe some people…
/r/MensRights24/10/13 06:29 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter