Unhinged article, Unhinged comment section

Mysterious_Metal2616 · 2025-01-09T21:44:13+00:00

Sincerely, I hope none of the women in the comments of the above article should ever have a son.

Ideally, I don't think they should have any children at all...

Can you even imagine being a boy whose mother thinks his entire gender is genetically useless and expendable?

Butter_the_Garde · 2025-01-09T22:20:49+00:00

First, it isincomprehensible that any female shouldwant to throw away half her genes and take on someone else’s, when theoretically she could just produce clones of herself instead.

Genetic diversity stops a single disease from wiping out the species.

These people are idiots.

Butter_the_Garde · 2025-01-09T22:33:22+00:00

One of the comments had the right idea:

“So.. what the heck is this crap? I'm an evolutionary biologist (also a woman, if that matters) that studies the evolution of sex and I have to say… this is a very disingenuous cherry-picking of the ideas and concepts around the issue. Not to mention the shockingly invidious argument made here. I feel like the author read a couple of old popsci books to sound like he knows what he’s talking about. He throws in names like Maynard Smith and Dawkins... etc... to sound fancy. Decades old news. It’s no surprise he was with a disreputable organization like Tavistock….

Yes, we don’t believe (and haven’t for a very long time) that the answer to the maintenance of sex is simply down to generating more “genetic diversity.” We also know that recombination can just as easily break apart favorable allelic combinations as generate them. But it is certainly not “equivocal” that sex (and males in two-sex species) is of great biological importance. That is not in debate, only the primary mechanism by which sex is maintained. There are of course many ways to reproduce in nature as mentioned, but for eukaryotes sex is predominant. Eukaryotes that eliminate sex and become exclusively parthenogenetic are almost invariably carving out a path to extinction (the famous bdelloid rotifers, according to recent studies, have evidence of being sexual the whole time). We have so many models and experiments now showing how advantageous sex is, it’s the asexuals that have become hard to explain. Also the explanations are not mutually exclusive. Sex not only defends from parasites, but maintains genomic integrity from mutational accumulation and speeds up adaptive evolution too. Plenty of not just theoretical, but experimental evidence for these hypotheses. The fact that sex is a compromise between “invasion” and “cooperation” does not diminish its importance, it enhances it, because it’s maintained in the face of such costs.

Also, male and female roles vary by species. In some, males don’t invest much into young and exclusively compete for matings. In others, the opposite (but it’s much more rare). Humans? We’re in-between. We also build complex societies where people play different but integral parts. Both sexes have thus played important roles in our species’ evolutionary history, and males evolved complex social roles in addition to their reproductive one, which this author just ignores entirely.

Also the pablum about male “deficiencies” is honestly just cherry-picked rhetoric. Of course there are going to be sex-specific vulnerabilities in a two-sex system. Males indeed are more vulnerable when it comes to survival (that’s part of the evolutionary tradeoff), but to be fair are also larger, stronger, faster than females. In terms of morbidity, it’s females that are sicker overall despite higher male mortality (this is known as the health gap paradox in medicine). Tons of data shows males also are less neurotic, less likely to have Alzheimer’s or autoimmune problems, diagnosed with fewer mental health disorders (females have more anxiety, depression, PTSD, mood and eating disorders, etc), and males have more individuals at higher IQs (a consequence of higher variance), win more Nobels and scientific awards, etc. (If you bristle at that last one, did you also bristle when the author mentioned male "deficiencies" in scholastic achievement?) I could go on and do like the author and list out all the “female” deficiencies, but I won’t do that because I hope you can see it would just be a waste of time. The author’s claim that “patriarchy” was invented by men to assert their needs because of their “patent inferiority” (!) is probably the most unsophisticated social theory I’ve ever heard. You could argue it’s actually relative male strengths that establish patriarchy – men are bigger and stronger than women. The idea of some overall superiority or inferiority is dogshit.”

Butter_the_Garde · 2025-01-09T22:22:50+00:00

“It is also reasonable to speculate that patriarchal societies are, ironically, men’s way of trying to assert their own needs in the face of their patent inferiority.”

Literal female supremacy. Who the fuck gave this woman a publication?

Males also do worse in (among other things) scholastic achievement, emotional literacy, alcoholism, substance abuse, circulatory disorders, diabetes, andlongevity. Kraemer looks at how maledisadvantage is “wired in” from infancyand persists to the grave, but he suggeststhat we shouldn’t necessarily conclude that maleness is a genetic disorder.

Kraemer is retarded I guess.

Title	Unhinged article, Unhinged comment section
Author	Mysterious_Metal2616
Upvotes	35
Comments	8
Date	January 9, 2025 9:40 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/EverydayMisandry
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/everydaymisandry/comments/1hxo1wy/unhinged_article_unhinged_comment_section/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/EverydayMisandry/unhinged-article-unhinged-comment-section.1540779 https://theredarchive.com/post/1540779

Comments