• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Overall, was feminism bad for America?

Overall, was feminism bad for America?


  • Total voters
    67
:prof A human male and female are about as genetically different as a human and a chimpanzee of the same gender.
 
You and I know that the distribution of hormones is, usually, gender related.
There are always anomalies in this world.

So it is a generality.

Edit: No where am I saying that women should scoot there asses to the kitchen.
I'm just saying that, in general, the personality and behavior of a man or women is largely determined by evolutionary gender roles.

You apparently have a strong need to see it as "men are this" and "women are this." But it tain't necessarily so. Our evolutionary heritage is A LOT more complicated than that.

For instance, the level of testosterone in mothers determines whether they have male or female offspring, and it is a changeable condition:

Women with high testosterone may be more likely to have sons - Times Online

She found that women who are confident, assertive, influential and with a strong sense of self have high levels of testosterone (you normally know one when you've met one) and produce sons, whereas mothers of daughters tend to be more nurturing, empathic and tolerant and have lower testosterone.

Grant has new research published this month which, she says, puts her theory on a firmer footing and yet again turns reproductive biology on its head. What she has come up with is a mechanism that has proved (albeit in cows, which sounds odd but is considered an acceptable model) that levels of testosterone in the follicles (which produce the egg) reliably predict the sex of the embryo and, more startling, that the egg may well come out already adapted to receive an X or Y chromosome-bearing sperm. In lay terms this means that the female has already “decided” which sex offspring to have before sperm get involved.

Anecdotally, it is always going to be easy to dismiss Grant's theory by coming up with someone who does not fit the mould. That is because most women can produce both-sex children. If you draw a normal distribution curve of testosterone, most women will fall in the middle; they have a medium amount and fluctuate from side to side across a middle line month to month, perhaps producing an egg adapted to an X chromosome one cycle, a Y chromosome the next. In women, testosterone is also very influenced by external stresses - on a grand scale, war, but also smaller stresses such as a death in family or changing jobs. But, Grant asserts, there are some women at either extremes of the line, still within a normal range, with high or low levels who will always have boys or always have girls - roughly 68 per cent in the middle, and 16 per cent at either end. Grant says that before contraception was widely used, she saw families with 12 or 13 children of the same sex. “I would still never say ‘never' to these women, though,” she admits. “Testosterone dips with age. You could have six boys in a row and suddenly produce a girl in your forties”.

I would guess that River has higher testosterone than average, as do Chuck, Aps, and 1069. All mothers of sons, fwiw.
 
Last edited:
I look at "feminism" as simply treating women as equals, with respect and dignity, not as second class citizens with limited abilities as was the case not very long ago.
America is being dragged into the 20th century, kicking and screaming, as witnessed by those(nearly 30%) against change.
20th century??? say some??.....We are still a century behind where we should be.
Some discrimination will always be necessary. Mainly, as it is the women who carries the child and must do the grunt work. She must be afforded every break.
 
:prof A human male and female are about as genetically different as a human and a chimpanzee of the same gender.

False. Chimps are vastly different to humans genetically. That 99% similar thing was based on flawed analysis (not based on chromosomal/gene analysis).
 
You can tell how assertive someone will be based upon the length of their ring finger (4D) in comparison to their index finger (2D).

Men whose ring fingers are shorter than their index fingers have lower levels of testosterone. Women whose ring fingers are as long or longer than their index fingers tend to have high levels of testosterone.

The old hunter/gatherer dynamic has largely been discarded. It's about hormones, these days.
 
You apparently have a strong need to see it as "men are this" and "women are this." But it tain't necessarily so. Our evolutionary heritage is A LOT more complicated than that.

For instance, the level of testosterone in mothers determines whether they have male or female offspring, and it is a changeable condition:

Women with high testosterone may be more likely to have sons - Times Online



I would guess that River has higher testosterone than average, as does Chuck, Aps, and 1069. All mothers of sons, fwiw.
:rofl You said "tain't"
 
I look forward to the day when we outrgow these tired notions that our personalities and brains are shaped by our genitalia.

Again, they aren't shaped by our genitalia or by the presence or absence of breasts and mammary glands. They are shaped, in part, by our hormonal differences, which in turn cause the development of secondary sex characteristics.
Yes, all people are different. There are masculine women and feminine men, and some of these behaviors are learned and environmental, but hormonal differences, not just sex hormones, but other endocrine system hormone production and release, do have an effect on how we evolved socially and behaviorally. It is necessary to the survival of our species for this to be the case. If we were all too heavily endowed with testosterone, we might be inclined to kill the children.;)

Womens rights and equality is an equalization of legal rights, but does not make women equal to men. It's not possible. Women are superior to men in some social arenas, and men are superior to women in others.
Reason cannot over-ride human biochemistry and endocrinology.
 
You can tell how assertive someone will be based upon the length of their ring finger (4D) in comparison to their index finger (2D).

Men whose ring fingers are shorter than their index fingers have lower levels of testosterone. Women whose ring fingers are as long or longer than their index fingers tend to have high levels of testosterone.

The old hunter/gatherer dynamic has largely been discarded. It's about hormones, these days.
When I want to display my assertiveness, I tend to use another finger.
 
Womens rights and equality is an equalization of legal rights, but does not make women equal to men. It's not possible. Women are superior to men in some social arenas, and men are superior to women in others.
Reason cannot over-ride human biochemistry and endocrinology.
We are legally equal to men, and more similar than those who want to reinforce sex differences will ever admit.
 
You can tell how assertive someone will be based upon the length of their ring finger (4D) in comparison to their index finger (2D).

Men whose ring fingers are shorter than their index fingers have lower levels of testosterone. Women whose ring fingers are as long or longer than their index fingers tend to have high levels of testosterone.

The old hunter/gatherer dynamic has largely been discarded. It's about hormones, these days.

*looks at hands, sees longer ring fingers*

Well, that explains a lot.
 
By far and large, the only species on this planet that has trouble with acceptance of the natural order of things, and problems accepting that nature works, if you let it, are the humans.
 
By far and large, the only species on this planet that has trouble with acceptance of the natural order of things, and problems accepting that nature works, if you let it, are the humans.

What's really awesome is that "the natural order of things" has been found to be culturally and not genetically based. Some women are genetically predisposed to be more stereotypically male in their personalities, and that's perfectly normal--FOR THOSE WOMEN.

Just like it is perfectly normal for some women to want to be doormats.

But thanks for playing.
 
We are legally equal to men, and more similar than those who want to reinforce sex differences will ever admit.

We (women) are similar to men in that we have the same physical characteristics, except for sexual characteristics. These differences are what is responsible for our very existence. To me, that's a pretty big deal.
 
Some women are genetically predisposed to be more stereotypically male in their personalities, and that's perfectly normal--FOR THOSE WOMEN.

True. That is normal for me too. When I participate on internet forums, and do not blantantly advertise that I am a woman, I am often mistaken for a man. Very often. It is, no doubt, in my personality.
 
False. Chimps are vastly different to humans genetically. That 99% similar thing was based on flawed analysis (not based on chromosomal/gene analysis).

No, humans really do have 99% of genes in common with chimps, just as we have 75% of genes in common with nematode worms (most DNA is junk). However, there is evidence that the difference in DNA between human men and women is equal to or even greater than that of a male human and chimpanzee.

Took a while to retrieve the study, but:

Y Chromosome Depends on Itself to Survive - NYTimes.com
As often noted, the genomes of humans and chimpanzees are 98.5 percent identical, when each of their three billion DNA units are compared. But what of men and women, who have different chromosomes?

Until now, biologists have said that makes no difference, because there are almost no genes on the Y, and in women one of the two X chromosomes is inactivated, so that both men and women have one working X chromosome.

But researchers have recently found that several hundred genes on the X escape inactivation. Taking those genes into account along with the new tally of Y genes gives this result: Men and women differ by 1 to 2 percent of their genomes, Dr. Page said, which is the same as the difference between a man and a male chimpanzee or between a woman and a female chimpanzee.

Almost all male-female differences, whether in cognition, behavior, anatomy or susceptibility to disease, have usually been attributed to the sex hormones. But given the genomic differences that are now apparent, that premise has to be re-examined, in Dr. Page's view.

''We all recite the mantra that we are 99 percent identical and take political comfort in it,'' Dr. Page said. ''But the reality is that the genetic difference between males and females absolutely dwarfs all other differences in the human genome.''

Found here, which goes into the subject further: The pseudo-feminist show trial of Larry Summers. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine
 
We (women) are similar to men in that we have the same physical characteristics, except for sexual characteristics. These differences are what is responsible for our very existence. To me, that's a pretty big deal.

About 20% of women have high testosterone levels that make it normal for them to be assertive, aggressive, dominant and risk-taking. Similarly, about 20% of men have low testosterone levels that correlate to having stereotypically feminine traits.

These hormones, more than our genitalia, control our behavior and our internal identities.
 
No, humans really do have 99% of genes in common with chimps, just as we have 75% of genes in common with nematode worms (most DNA is junk). However, there is evidence that the difference in DNA between human men and women is equal to or even greater than that of a male human and chimpanzee.

Interestingly enough, men with high levels of testosterone do better in math/science than men who don't have these high levels.

http://www.livescience.com/health/070522_finger_sats.html

:prof This explains why so many scientists are also bald and hairy.*
















*In all seriousness, high levels of testosterone are linked to male pattern baldness and high amounts of body hair.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom