[BostonIan]

Where to start...

Okay, men and women: from what I understand, we have slightly different genes, chromosomes, but, basically, we start as the same embryo, look alike as babies, diverge through our prime, then start to look alike again as elderly. The culprit in the divergence is hormones. From foetal hormones into adulthood, we just have different levels, I can't find them all in one source, but, from memory: women have more dopamine, prolactin, estrogen, oxytocin, men have more testosterone. Each one of these little chems affects behaviors, brain function, body traits predictably. If you have X, then Y. There is no way for a person to inherit a behavior or evolutionary trait except for a physiological mechanism.

Important for a few reasons, one, because it's a proof that men and women are, in fact, different. Naturally, inherently, measurably. But, since I assume that everybody already knows that the sexes are different, just doesn't like to admit it, moving along. The hormone thing also matters because fits into my explanation for the riddle of how any thinking population could ever be made to believe otherwise.

My theory is that the modern environment has been lowering men's testosterone levels, which are lowering at 1% per year, 50% lower since 1940. Different factors, I'd guess that diet is a culprit, excess fat, "pace of modern living". Second is that sunlight makes testosterone, and I'd guess that people are spending less time outdoors, more time in classrooms or watching television. Third is that exciting orgasms increases prolactin and decreases testosterone receptors and gender-specific hormones. I'll go ahead and blame birth control pills for releasing an excess of estrogen into the environment and population.

Men have become less manly, less different, less like what men are supposed to be, less what they've been throughout history. Therefor the idea of gender equality holds more sway. Also, urbanization is a factor, since the natural role of men is to lead, obey and establish order. In a large community, it's harder to establish clear lines of authority, and the nesting (get along) role of women becomes predominant. The downfall of men causes women to rise in comparison, ascending to the leadership position in most homes and schools, especially since divorce and single-motherhood has removed men from homes entirely.

Therefor men become more and more patterned after women as time goes on, like a dog raised by cats. What real institutional authority that does remain establishes the morality of gender equality, with typical pecking and shaming to enforce the system, and manhood loops in on itself. The natural desire to protect women gets driven into protecting "equal rights", chivalry becomes femalry. End of explanation theory on how gender equality becomes ingrained:

Now, reality, according to me: The role and function of women in a population is to build the human, the flesh, the animal. They birth every the population, raise it, feed it, tend to its needs, install the feelings, and bind it together. That is the purpose of their emotions, the oxytocin, the estrogen, the endless chatting and empathetic problem resolution. Neither sex can exist without the other, but we are not equal.

In their natural environment, men are the leaders of society. In history, we are the kings, lawmakers, shamans, chiefs, judges, politicians, generals, lieutenants, captains, religious leaders, cult-leaders, business owners, scientists, God Himself. We've built every building, fought every war, explored every land, written every rule. What we consider a civilization is us.

Answering the question that brought this on, since men set the rules, establish the order and hold the natural leadership position, they are more responsible for their actions, and receive an unequal portion of the blame for any action done with a woman. Also, inherent differences, I expect men to be more logical and detached, women to be more hormonal and emotional. Also, with women, it's understandable that she'd shop for men if her current beau isn't living up to his natural leadership responsibility in the home, therefor a husband deserves responsibility for his wife's infidelity.

Anticipating the arguments:

• Ad hominems, "what's wrong with you?" lines of thought are fun, but try to speak to the overall point as well. Where am I wrong? Prove it.
• The arguments at the margins, that "not all men" are like this, "not all women" are like that, and "I know a personal anecdote that proves..." are valid, but I'm thinking more on the overall civilizational level. The bigger the picture, the less individuals matter.
• That "things are so much better now" is a separate argument, I'm arguing more about natural roles, biology, civilizational chess.

[darynthe]

I think you are right. I don't agree with feminism as they deny feminity. They try to create a strange drone that should be exactly a man but angry, promiscous and with different body. I reject this as I don't see anything wrong with being a woman.

It is sad indeed that I have to agree that men are less manly, especially in first world. I will put an example of this. In 1989, a spree killer got into a ingeneering class in the Politechnique of Quebec. He had a gun and ordered all the men out. It was about 30 men if I am not wrong and about 15 women. All the men complied and didn't even dream of trying to stop this guy.

The guy killed the women while the men ran scared.

Is this what the society is making of men? People who are no able to react as a man is supposed to, they became submissive and indifferent?

Funny enough, ever since, there are manifestations here in Montreal against machismo. The manifestation, in my opinion, should be against feminism.

[Rudy]

	Originally Posted by BostonIan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Men have become less manly, less different, less like what men are supposed to be, less what they've been throughout history.

My main objection to your argument is here, the emboldening is my own.

I think there's something to the argument you make from a historical, evolutionary perspective. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but I can see how evolution would have favored the roles you are inferring.

However, you make a mistake when you go from "evolution favored these traits" to "these are the traits men are supposed to have." Biology has nothing to do with supposed tos or shoulds. You cannot get an ought from an is. There's no rational reason we need bow to biology in any area, including relationships.

[Tocsin]

There are certainly physical, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women, but as sentient beings capable of rational thought, I would hope that we would emphasize our conscious ability to decide for ourselves who we are and what we choose to be, rather than making ourselves willing prisoners of predetermined biological perspectives.

The ideological chains forged to define people by sexual identity are just as ugly as the chains that have been have forged to define people by racial identity.

In the end, what we all have in common is probably the more essential aspect of humanity to keep in mind than the various details that make us different.

[thod]

You are correct, we are castrated by the water, the food, the social systems. Unable to act like men, we do not become women, instead we are more like boys. This leads to frustration in the men who still feel a pull to their evolutionary role. It leads to dissatisfaction amongst the women who are unable to find the qualities they desire in a man.

Those who claim we are free floating intellects, male and female alike, are fools. We are hooked to our evolutionary past through our bodies and our brains. The most important factor for us long ago ceased to be predation by animals. We have evolved to fight off those that would take our resources and to take theirs instead. Men have evolved for warfare, not modern warfare but tribal warfare. We bond into warrior bands, we understand the idea of violence again the other, we instinctively want to protect our women. The women have evolved for their role too, they would prefer the certainties of such a world and seek such men out. The taking of women back to your own village either by warfare or by marriage has left its mark on the female mind, allowing them to rapidly integrate. We are not free, we are the product of our past.

	The ideological chains forged to define people by sexual identity are just as ugly as the chains that have been have forged to define people by racial identity.

A perfect example of failure to recognise reality. We are no more able to change our nature than anything other creature. Every horse I have ever encountered acts like a horse, every dog like a dog. We are not being given the choice of what a human is, we are what we are. Force a dog to act in the manner of sea lion all you get is a very stressed out dog, you don't get a sea lion.

I contend that both men and women have natures that they would be happiest following. Not all are the same, but exceptions are not averages. My sexual identity is not a chain, it is what I am, it is what I was made for, I don't want to change it. What you seek is a reason for being what you are, if you cannot find that reason, you conclude that you need not be so. Yet this is false reasoning, there is no reason why you were born a man and not a bird, this does not mean you can be a bird by choice, you are, and always will be a man.


The main problem is that if the world were to revert to that men are designed for, we would be back to constant tribal wars. Men thus have to change and evolution is a very slow process. Likewise women have to change. Where we still have our natural conditions we have low technology. Yet I sometimes ask myself, if I gave a cat a microwave oven, would it really benefit? Surely a cat enjoys wondering around the streets do cat things. A cat given a microwave would ignore it.

[Autoptic]

Originally Posted by darynthe To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is sad indeed that I have to agree that men are less manly, especially in first world. I will put an example of this. In 1989, a spree killer got into a ingeneering class in the Politechnique of Quebec. He had a gun and ordered all the men out. It was about 30 men if I am not wrong and about 15 women. All the men complied and didn't even dream of trying to stop this guy. The guy killed the women while the men ran scared. Is this what the society is making of men? People who are no able to react as a man is supposed to, they became submissive and indifferent?

Why didn't the 15 women do anything? What if it were reversed? A dick doesn't make me bulletproof. Besides, just as you aren't my piece of ass, I'm not your meatshield, you know?





Autoptic added to this post, 14 minutes and 10 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A perfect example of failure to recognise reality. We are no more able to change our nature than anything other creature. Every horse I have ever encountered acts like a horse, every dog like a dog. We are not being given the choice of what a human is, we are what we are.

Humans are, by nature, extremely versatile, and many traits are provably learned with absolutely no intrinsic default other than to learn.

I contend that both men and women have natures that they would be happiest following. Not all are the same, but exceptions are not averages. My sexual identity is not a chain, it is what I am, it is what I was made for, I don't want to change it. What you seek is a reason for being what you are, if you cannot find that reason, you conclude that you need not be so. Yet this is false reasoning, there is no reason why you were born a man and not a bird, this does not mean you can be a bird by choice, you are, and always will be a man.

Our drives are naturally conflicting and in no way designed to make us happy. You're basically arguing against rational thought here. That's quite fitting considering your entire argument there is circular and contradictory. You're saying what a man is supposed to be then backing it up by simply repeating saying it's what he is while admitting he's not.

	Yet I sometimes ask myself, if I gave a cat a microwave oven, would it really benefit? Surely a cat enjoys wondering around the streets do cat things. A cat given a microwave would ignore it.

Men started with dirt and made the damn microwave. Time-binding is human as are many examples including language. Much of our nature is just a setup for nurture.

[thod]

	Why didn't the 15 women do anything? What if it were reversed? A dick doesn't make me bullet proof. Besides, just as you aren't my piece of ass, I'm not your meatshield, you know?

True, but I do think there is something deep down in guys that causes them to react differently to violence against men and women. If two guys decide to have a bar room fight, that is accepted as the way things are. Warriors fight other warriors it is natural behaviour. But suppose a guy started beating on a pretty waitress, most guys blood would begin to boil at such. They would want to intervene and say "take me on instead", or perhaps its just because I am the warrior type. I have a sense of righteousness "Men are for fighting, women for fucking".

It may seem illogical to undergo risks just to preserve righteousness, yet the fear is overcome by the anger. The other guy's behaviour is restricted simply because he knows he will will attacked in turn if he steps out of line. What is important is not only self preservation but how you shall live. Standing up, accepting risk, and taking pain are what is called courage. Courage is something many men seem to lack these days. Without it you are destined to be dominated by other men, much like the women, who will choose to mate with the other man, whilst you are regarded with scorn by all.

I know that is illogical for me to accept men hitting men but react to men hitting women, that is what I am though and I have learned to accept myself.

	You're basically arguing against rational thought here.

We are not driven by pure reason. The rational man fared poorly in the real world and was eliminated from the gene pool. Game theorists always loose when the other guy is not rational.

[Autoptic]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

True, but I do think there is something deep down in guys that causes them to react differently to violence against men and women. If two guys decide to have a bar room fight, that is accepted as the way things are. Warriors fight other warriors it is natural behaviour. But suppose a guy started beating on a pretty waitress, most guys blood would begin to boil at such. They would want to intervene and say "take me on instead", or perhaps its just because I am the warrior type. I have a sense of righteousness "Men are for fighting, women for fucking". It may seem illogical to undergo risks just to preserve righteousness, yet the fear is overcome by the anger. The other guy's behaviour is restricted simply because he knows he will will attacked in turn if he steps out of line. What is important is not only self preservation but how you shall live. Standing up, accepting risk, and taking pain are what is called courage. Courage is something many men seem to lack these days. Without it you are destined to be dominated by other men, much like the women, who will choose to mate with the other man, whilst you are regarded with scorn by all. I know that is illogical for me to accept men hitting men but react to men hitting women, that is what I am though and I have learned to accept myself.

You just described your average stupid violent criminal while rationalizing it just like they do.

[thod]

	You just described your average stupid violent criminal while rationalizing it just like they do.

Perhaps it is perspective, and not intellect. As Sun Tzu said about warfare, Recklessness leads to death, cowardice to capture. I suggest that, like the scarecrow, you lack courage and use "reason" as your excuse for your condition.

The problem with arguing from rationality is that everything is meaningless. The truly rational man is entirely passive, there is no reason to do anything or select one option over another. Whenever an outcome is desired, that is emotion. All men die, it matters not if its 1 year or 100 years, in the end nothing matters. It matters not to the rational man if he is dominant or dominated, lives or dies. Rationality is, in the final analysis, sterile. I seek more than this now.

[Chemist]

Given my current occupations (Chemist / Pilot) I have to disagree with a good majority of your post but I find it interesting that you view the changes in society this way.

[Stratego]

Where to start...

Okay, men and women: from what I understand, we have slightly different genes, chromosomes, but, basically, we start as the same embryo, look alike as babies, diverge through our prime, then start to look alike again as elderly. The culprit in the divergence is hormones. From foetal hormones into adulthood, we just have different levels, I can't find them all in one source, but, from memory: women have more dopamine, prolactin, estrogen, oxytocin, men have more testosterone. Each one of these little chems affects behaviors, brain function, body traits predictably. If you have X, then Y. There is no way for a person to inherit a behavior or evolutionary trait except for a physiological mechanism. [/QUOTE]

I agree for the most part, but behaviors can also be learned from example and endless repetition, indoctrination.

Originally Posted by BostonIan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Important for a few reasons, one, because it's a proof that men and women are, in fact, different. Naturally, inherently, measurably. But, since I assume that everybody already knows that the sexes are different, just doesn't like to admit it, moving along. The hormone thing also matters because fits into my explanation for the riddle of how any thinking population could ever be made to believe otherwise.

Yes, well said for the most part, (naturally, inherently, measurably, excellent point) but to suggest that hormones have such a pervasive and strong influence on behavior, while discounting other factors such as cultural or social influences, if only half the equation.

Originally Posted by BostonIan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My theory is that the modern environment has been lowering men's testosterone levels, which are lowering at 1% per year, 50% lower since 1940. Different factors, I'd guess that diet is a culprit, excess fat, "pace of modern living". Second is that sunlight makes testosterone, and I'd guess that people are spending less time outdoors, more time in classrooms or watching television. Third is that exciting orgasms increases prolactin and decreases testosterone receptors and gender-specific hormones. I'll go ahead and blame birth control pills for releasing an excess of estrogen into the environment and population.

So, according to this, women that want total reproductive freedom are responsible for men becoming less manly...not sure I agree.

Originally Posted by BostonIan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Men have become less manly, less different, less like what men are supposed to be, less what they've been throughout history. Therefor the idea of gender equality holds more sway. Also, urbanization is a factor, since the natural role of men is to lead, obey and establish order. In a large community, it's harder to establish clear lines of authority, and the nesting (get along) role of women becomes predominant. The downfall of men causes women to rise in comparison, ascending to the leadership position in most homes and schools, especially since divorce and single-motherhood has removed men from homes entirely.

Biology may have determined that men have greater muscle mass, less fat, and different levels of horomones, etc---but to suggest that leadership and establishing order are "natural" roles for men is going a bit too far. Leadership requires more than brute strength.

Originally Posted by BostonIan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Therefore men become more and more patterned after women as time goes on, like a dog raised by cats. What real institutional authority that does remain establishes the morality of gender equality, with typical pecking and shaming to enforce the system, and manhood loops in on itself. The natural desire to protect women gets driven into protecting "equal rights", chivalry becomes femalry. End of explanation theory on how gender equality becomes ingrained: Now, reality, according to me: The role and function of women in a population is to build the human, the flesh, the animal. They birth every the population, raise it, feed it, tend to its needs, install the feelings, and bind it together. That is the purpose of their emotions, the oxytocin, the estrogen, the endless chatting and empathetic problem resolution. Neither sex can exist without the other, but we are not equal.

While there is some science in this part of your argument, the "endless" chatting you mention and "empathetic resolution" behaviors are still more of gender stereotypes than actual behavior.

	Originally Posted by BostonIan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In their natural environment, men are the leaders of society. In history, we are the kings, lawmakers, shamans, chiefs, judges, politicians, generals, lieutenants, captains, religious leaders, cult-leaders, business owners, scientists, God Himself. We've built every building, fought every war, explored every land, written every rule. What we consider a civilization is us.

Whoah! Eau de sexism, here. Yes, men in history, blah blah, kings and chiefs, blah blah---but to suggest that man=civilzation is going a little far.

There are countless examples of women thinkers, artists, and leaders in history that are no less effective, or revolutionary, as their male counterparts. Let me also point out the obvious about the sheer majority of all our glorified male leaders---men wanted it that way, and did eveything they could to make it so, maintain it. From nature they took their cue, and exaggerated the differences between the sexes and magnified them beyond proportion to gain that control. And another obvious---making babies does not in any real way detract from a woman's ability to do any of the above.

Originally Posted by BostonIan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Answering the question that brought this on, since men set the rules, establish the order and hold the natural leadership position, they are more responsible for their actions, and receive an unequal portion of the blame for any action done with a woman. Also, inherent differences, I expect men to be more logical and detached, women to be more hormonal and emotional. Also, with women, it's understandable that she'd shop for men if her current beau isn't living up to his natural leadership responsibility in the home, therefor a husband deserves responsibility for his wife's infidelity.

Still sexism and not science. All people are responsible for their own actions, and neither male or female deserves greater or lesser blame.


As for the big picture: let's remember that almost from the beginning of our civilization women were never able/allowed to achieve the same level of literacy, education, or self realization as men. This perhaps accounts for some of the stereotypical behaviors associated to women (i.e. irrational and emotional)--what other recourse does an ignorant, untrained, untaxed, and incomplete being have?

[Autoptic]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Perhaps it is perspective, and not intellect. As Sun Tzu said about warfare, Recklessness leads to death, cowardice to capture. I suggest that, like the scarecrow, you lack courage and use "reason" as your excuse for your condition. The problem with arguing from rationality is that everything is meaningless. The truly rational man is entirely passive, there is no reason to do anything or select one option over another. Whenever an outcome is desired, that is emotion. All men die, it matters not if its 1 year or 100 years, in the end nothing matters. It matters not to the rational man if he is dominant or dominated, lives or dies. Rationality is, in the final analysis, sterile. I seek more than this now.

You confusing courage with rage and claiming to justify senseless violence on your whims. I know rage. It's a family "gift" which already put two in prison. You're trying to justify—either reasoning or rationalizing, pick one—going back to dumb apes because some delusional notions of the good ole days gives you a woody. They weren't good. The closest ones to what you're thinking weren't even that old. Tribes aren't that old. Bands preceded them and didn't have alphas. Any leaders had to as rational as possible, or they'd die, and people very much knew this in a way you don't seem grasp. We're slow, weak, and soft compared to other animals. Why do you think we evolved our rational capacity?

Also, that's neither what reason nor rationality mean. Rationality doesn't define ends just means. Any valuation involves rationing and emotion. Bothering to work out patterns in sensory stimuli and draw inference from these patterns is all that reason is. All animals with anything resembling a brain do this. Humans dominate the planet only because we do this better. What the hell do you think analysis is?

"Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical. If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are. Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content."

"No leader should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no leader should fight a battle simply out of pique. But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life. Hence the enlightened leader is heedful, and the good leader full of caution."

Sun Tzu had a lot of these.

[reb]

my theory for the effect has been more along the lines of 'the best genetics have been destroyed in wars, starting in america with the war of northern aggression'. since i tend to look at genetics before i look at environmental factors, this is consistent with my thinking.

but, as far as the general effect, most men aint worth a shit nowadays. they're not 'men' by my definition-and i'm not talking about sexual orientation. i know some women that are better 'men' than some men....they have better principles of life, they are more consistent, less emotional, and they understand motivation, leverage and power far better....their sexual equipment and hormones do not bar them from correctly analyzing life. one might congeal this to mean 'the lack of principle in modern life makes humankind less valuable', and i would not disagree with that.

[Jonathan Brewer]

	Originally Posted by RudyHenkel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	However, you make a mistake when you go from "evolution favored these traits" to "these are the traits men are supposed to have." Biology has nothing to do with supposed tos or shoulds. You cannot get an ought from an is. There's no rational reason we need bow to biology in any area, including relationships.

I too would not completely disagree with your observations. However, as Rudy said, what a man or woman is supposed to be is not defined solely by biology. In most cases, people become what society or need pressures them to become. That men were initially hunters is only logical. They didn't have the option to hold an IT job and shop at the supermarket. In the same light, women kept the home because day care wasn't an option.

The real question is why we evolved in such a way as to develop new roles for ourselves. I don't think it is because of a lack of testosterone. In fact, I would imagine the lack of testosterone is the natural result of requiring less of it.

I agree, it is sad that men are not as courageous and protective as one would hope they would be. It is equally sad that a number of women view the job of raising their own children as a pathetic career path. In many ways we are destroying ourselves, but I don't believe biology can be blamed for that. The mind is where thoughts and ideas originate. We have created this world we live in and the expectations it holds for each gender.

If we were to suddenly be plunged into a world void of technology and intellectual discovery, I believe the "traditional" roles would emerge. That would be out of necessity though, and not genetics.

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by BostonIan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My theory is that the modern environment has been lowering men's testosterone levels, which are lowering at 1% per year, 50% lower since 1940.

Source?

[ElstonGunn]

Originally Posted by BostonIan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In their natural environment, men are the leaders of society. In history, we are the kings, lawmakers, shamans, chiefs, judges, politicians, generals, lieutenants, captains, religious leaders, cult-leaders, business owners, scientists, God Himself. We've built every building, fought every war, explored every land, written every rule. What we consider a civilization is us. [...] The arguments at the margins, that "not all men" are like this, "not all women" are like that, and "I know a personal anecdote that proves..." are valid, but I'm thinking more on the overall civilizational level. The bigger the picture, the less individuals matter.

If you want the bigger picture, than why do you ignore the 99 percent of men who never were, aren't, and never will be kings or chiefs or leaders of anything? Most men have the same amount of influence that most women have, which is to say, next to nothing. How many laws have you written? How many continents have you mapped? How many armies have you commanded? How many diseases have you cured? The fact that society worked itself out in such a way as to leave these options open for a small group of people who mostly were men doesn't mean that men as a group are more favored in general terms. I think that in the big picture, most women have worked just as hard as most men for just as little personal gain.

[thod]

	Source?

Every so often these stories crop up. Its good journalism since no man wishes to be less of a man than his father or grandfather. Google it and you will find reports, some quoting the original scientific papers.

	If you want the bigger picture, than why do you ignore the 99 percent of men who never were, aren't, and never will be kings or chiefs or leaders of anything?

Testosterone levels in males are related to status in the pack. I read papers on this long ago, and just saw it again on the wiki page. One doesn't have to be a king to have this effect, so long as he can kick the dog. A high status male will raise testosterone to breed more, such attempted breeding by a low status male would get him killed. Thus his body adapts. Women who make their man feel like he is in charge will end up getting more sex from him, the reverse is also true.

The actual cause of declining testosterone is still up for debate. Clearly there are social advantages in lowering male aggression. Yet at the same time lower testosterone can create other health problems in males. You may have seen the various studies of deformed fish. The chemicals in the water feminise them creating problems with fish stocks. Another possible cause is the ubiquity of soya in all our food which lowers it.

Although higher testosterone levels do not mean you will become a king, they do raise your willingness to compete for that position and your willingness to try again if you fail. Our brains are not separate from our bodies. Take some cocaine and you will think you are superman. Flooding your body with testosterone also effects it. The effects of hormones are less apparent to men than they are to women who must tolerate the mood swings of the menstrual cycle.

The argument about aggression being bad is not so clear cut. The passive man, unwilling to harm others, may reflect modern values but it could have been a losing strategy. After all, if the aggressive guy sticks a spear through him, he is free to mate with his ex-wife. Here is an interesting article from this weeks Time magazine
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Vagrant]

There's something I didn't find people addressing:

Testosterone levels may be dropping for more than just the reasons listed above.

Guess what's also been happening since the 40's? You may have guess it -- a chemical revolution. Organic chemistry, primarily. You know what you're wearing? Polymers. You know what you're eating off and drinking out of? Polymers. Hell, the stuff you wipe your ass with is polymers.

A lot of the chemicals we use to manufacture, as well as in our daily lives has been found to cause emasculation of male animals, notably reptiles and amphibians (those pollutants we dump into natural environments? Yeah, it's lowering sperm count, testosterone levels, and testes size in male animals. Amphibians and reptiles are noted for being much more sensitive to the environment than mammals, which means they are an indicator for what will happen to us). There's a very simple reason for this: Males on the whole are much more sensitive to chemical changes in the environment than women are. In chemical manufacturing cities and near chemical plants, one will find the gender ratio very badly skewed towards female children. Where are all the male children? They are naturally aborting because they are more sensitive to the chemicals in the environment. It's well known that males have a 5-25x higher mutation rate than females do. In general, men are more susceptible to the environment.

Just because we're human, doesn't mean we're immune to the effects of these chemicals. While our livers and kidneys are good, they aren't that good. Pesticides, herbicides, you name it, you're eating it or wearing it. And it is affecting you and your children.




Simply put, a lot of the causes listed above may be potential reasons, but seem superficial at best. Feminism is simply a public face to something that's existed for a while -- there are plenty of historical cases of women being more dominant than men. Being indoors was pretty common in the Victorian era. No, for such a drastic change (1% a year? That's drastic) in 60 years, something significant has to have changed. The only logical thing I see is the chemical revolution, which slowly started in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but really kicked into gear after WWII.

[Chemist]

Originally Posted by Vagrant To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There's something I didn't find people addressing: Testosterone levels may be dropping for more than just the reasons listed above. Guess what's also been happening since the 40's? You may have guess it -- a chemical revolution. Organic chemistry, primarily. You know what you're wearing? Polymers. You know what you're eating off and drinking out of? Polymers. Hell, the stuff you wipe your ass with is polymers. A lot of the chemicals we use to manufacture, as well as in our daily lives has been found to cause emasculation of male animals, notably reptiles and amphibians (those pollutants we dump into natural environments? Yeah, it's lowering sperm count, testosterone levels, and testes size in male animals. Amphibians and reptiles are noted for being much more sensitive to the environment than mammals, which means they are an indicator for what will happen to us). There's a very simple reason for this: Males on the whole are much more sensitive to chemical changes in the environment than women are. In chemical manufacturing cities and near chemical plants, one will find the gender ratio very badly skewed towards female children. Where are all the male children? They are naturally aborting because they are more sensitive to the chemicals in the environment. It's well known that males have a 5-25x higher mutation rate than females do. In general, men are more susceptible to the environment. Just because we're human, doesn't mean we're immune to the effects of these chemicals. While our livers and kidneys are good, they aren't that good. Pesticides, herbicides, you name it, you're eating it or wearing it. And it is affecting you and your children. Simply put, a lot of the causes listed above may be potential reasons, but seem superficial at best. Feminism is simply a public face to something that's existed for a while -- there are plenty of historical cases of women being more dominant than men. Being indoors was pretty common in the Victorian era. No, for such a drastic change (1% a year? That's drastic) in 60 years, something significant has to have changed. The only logical thing I see is the chemical revolution, which slowly started in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but really kicked into gear after WWII.

lol!

Those pesky polymers...
Unintended chemical uptake by the body is definitely a problem but cannot be associated with the uptake of polymers which... is certainly not the cause of lower testosterone levels in males...

this can be understood by viewing the biological pathway through which testosterone is synthesized.. Also breaking out our angstrom ruler we can see that uptake of polymers by our bodies is somewhat difficult given their size.. and for the most part when broken down into their smaller components (which requires lots of energy by the way) polymers would be easily eradicated by the body's natural defenses...

In addition... most pesticides are not polymers... they are naturally occurring metabolites from other biological sources that are then mass produced in a lab... and while being problematic for the environment they are not the cause of lower testosterone levels observed in males...

I'm not even going to tackle the rest of the post... but suffice it to say.. something would actually have to be capable of entering the biological pathway or somehow negatively impacting the biological pathway of another metabolite involved in the synthesis of testosterone for something to affect testosterone levels in males effectively...

Also.... anything that would be able to attach to produced testosterone in males would likely either be attacked and broken into the most energetically stable components i.e. testosterone and bad thing... or would aggregate somewhere nasty in the body and lower testosterone levels would be the least of your problems...

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Every so often these stories crop up. Its good journalism since no man wishes to be less of a man than his father or grandfather. Google it and you will find reports, some quoting the original scientific papers.

Do you know where the original papers can be found?
I find those statistics very suspicious. Low testosterone levels and sperm counts have been correlated with exposure to chemicals (especially pesticides in water), but are we really to believe that we have half as much testosterone as those living in the 40s? Shouldn't there be major declines in usage of razors and incidents of physical aggression? Have women's testosterone levels also been dropping, or are men supposed to have less than women by 2050?

[JustMel]

	Women who make their man feel like he is in charge will end up getting more sex from him, the reverse is also true.

This is the stupidest thing I have heard yet. Do you have actual data to back this up or is it one of your male chauvinist ideals?

We'll take my husband as an example. He's a guy's guy for the most part other than liking sports. When it comes to physical activities he's normally on the top of the food chain. He's tall and filled out and has huge guy hands. It's my house, his home. He'll tell you that. He is the stay at home dad. He is raising our girls. I work to support us all financially. He is raising our girls to be strong, independent women. He is getting a chance that a lot of men would like to have but it's not an option for them. He is the one that "mothers" the kids when it comes to being sick, having bumps and bruises. We are raising them to think for themselves and not have to be dependent on someone else to provide for them. He deals with anything that comes up.

Our "traditional" roles are reversed. He catches a lot of grief from his brothers for "being a pussy who is taken care of by his wife". He doesn't care. He says it's no different than it was when I stayed home with the kids. The difference is he enjoys it and I hated it. I love my kids but I'm not a stay at home parent. I can't do it. We don't use the fact that we're male and female to work things out--we use our individual and combined strengths. He defends me and the girls if he feels we're being threatened or talked to in such a manner he is not comfortable with but he also trusts me to defend myself.

We have the same amount of sex we did when I stayed home as we do now. Taking on traditionally "female" roles has not diminished his masculinity or emasculated him. He still changes the oil because he knows I'll take it to an oil change place. Not because I can't change my own oil but because I don't want to. I once rebuilt the motor and transmission in my car because someone told me I couldn't because I was "just a girl".

I'm not saying testosterone levels aren't physically changing but I don't agree that it changes your being a "man".

[Tocsin]

The one line that really stuck out from the Time article that Thod posted a link to...

	...as past studies have shown, the higher your intelligence, the less sex you tend to have...

Perhaps this desire to go back to the days of being a knuckle dragging, club weilding chauvinist are nothing more than the frustration of guys who aren't getting all the sex that they want.

Hopefully, someday in the future, it will be possible for humanity to evolve to the point where we can be intelligent and still be "sex machines" at the same time.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Latro]

Originally Posted by JustMel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is the stupidest thing I have heard yet. Do you have actual data to back this up or is it one of your male chauvanist ideals? We'll take my husband as an example. He's a guy's guy for the most part other than liking sports. When it comes to physical activities he's normally on the top of the food chain. He's tall and filled out and has huge guy hands. It's my house, his home. He'll tell you that. He is the stay at home dad. He is raising our girls. I work to support us all financially. He is raising our girls to be strong, independent women. He is getting a chance that a lot of men would like to have but it's not an option for them. He is the one that "mothers" the kids when it comes to being sick, having bumps and bruises. We are raising them to think for themselves and not have to be dependent on someone else to provide for them. He deals with anything that comes up. Our "traditional" roles are reversed. He catches a lot of grief from his brothers for "being a pussy who is taken care of by his wife". He doesn't care. He says it's no different than it was when I stayed home with the kids. The difference is he enjoys it and I hated it. I love my kids but I'm not a stay at home parent. I can't do it. We don't use the fact that we're male and female to work things out--we use our individual and combined strengths. He defends me and the girls if he feels we're being threatened or talked to in such a manner he is not comfortable with but he also trusts me to defend myself. We have the same amount of sex we did when I stayed home as we do now. Taking on traditionally "female" roles has not diminished his masculinity or emasculated him. He still changes the oil because he knows I'll take it to an oil change place. Not because I can't change my own oil but because I don't want to. I once rebuilt the motor and transmission in my car because someone told me I couldn't because I was "just a girl". I'm not saying testosterone levels aren't physically changing but I don't agree that it changes your being a "man".

I'm not agreeing with him or with you, but this isn't a statistical sample by any stretch of the imagination. Granted, he doesn't have a statistical sample to present to us either, but two failed arguments don't make a valid one.

[JustMel]

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not agreeing with him or with you, but this isn't a statistical sample by any stretch of the imagination. Granted, he doesn't have a statistical sample to present to us either, but two failed arguments don't make a valid one.

I didn't intend for it to be a statistical sample. I was using it to show another viewpoint.

Statistically the number of stay at home fathers is increasing. Currently it's up to 18% in the US.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	an estimated 159,000 stay-at-home dads, or 2.7 percent of the country's stay-at-home parents -- almost triple the percentage from a decade ago --

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Families are evolving. So are men and ideas of masculinity. Conservatives (and some feminists) argue that men are by nature conquerors, breadwinners, and emotional dolts. But when Canadian sociologist Andrea Doucet studied stay-at-home dads, what constantly surprised her about these fathers “were these clear and loud male voices speaking in what scholars would call a ‘language of care’ or an ‘ethic of care’ that embraces qualities of relationality, connections, interdependence, responsiveness, and responsibility.” As numerous studies are revealing, it seems that biology is not destiny. “Could it be that when men speak in a language of care,” writes Doucet in her book Do Men Mother?, “it creates a sense of social and political vertigo?” In caring for Liko, never have I felt more secure in my masculinity; at the same time, never have I felt less “masculine.” I’m learning, slowly, to let go of the link between my self-worth and the contribution I make at work; more and more, I measure myself against women I see as successful mothers. Does that make me effeminate? Is there a reason why I should care? I’m not replacing my wife, who is Liko’s mother. For seven or so hours a day, I’m simply adopting a role that in my father’s day was automatically assigned to the biological female.

(same link as above)

Nowhere does it say that taking on traditionally female roles correlates to lower testosterone levels or being emascualted.

[thod]

	Do you know where the original papers can be found?

here is one:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I recall seeing similar work on American men but can't be bothered to look for it.

	Women who make their man feel like he is in charge will end up getting more sex from him, the reverse is also true.

	This is the stupidest thing I have heard yet. Do you have actual data to back this up or is it one of your male chauvinist ideals?

From wikipedia: Testosterone

Adult testosterone effects Adult testosterone effects are more clearly demonstrable in males than in females, but are likely important to both sexes. Some of these effects may decline as testosterone levels decline in the later decades of adult life. * Libido and clitoral engorgement/penile erection frequency. * Regulates acute HPA response under dominance challenge[16] * Mental and physical energy * Mantainance of muscle trophism * The most recent and reliable studies have shown that testosterone does not cause Prostate cancer, but that it can increase the rate of spread of any existing prostate cancer.[citation needed] Recent studies have also shown its importance in maintaining cardiovascular health.[citation needed] * Increase eumelanin and reduce pheomelanin[citation needed] * Under dominance challenge, may play a role in the regulation of the fight-or-flight response[17]

Factors affecting testosterone levels * Loss of status or dominance in men.[7] * Implicit power motivation predicts an increased testosterone release in men.[8] * Aging reduces tetosterone release.[9] * Hypogonadism * Sleep (REM dream) increases nocturnal testosterone levels.[10] * Resistance training increase testosterone levels,[11] however, in older men, that increase can be avoided by protein ingestion.[12] * Zinc deficiency lowers testosterone levels [13] but over supplementation has no effect on serum testosterone.[14]

Wiki:Libido

	Testosterone is one of the hormones controlling libido in human beings. Emerging research[5] is showing that hormonal contraception methods like "the pill" (which rely on estrogen and progesterone together) are causing low libido in females by elevating levels of Sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG). SHBG binds to sex hormones, including testosterone, rendering them unavailable.

I am not saying anything controversial. The human body reacts to changes in pack status by changing hormone production. Its an adaptation that make them fitter for the environment.