Women are genetically superior, but are there some downsides?

Treora

This is something I feel all women already truly knew, but there is more to it. Genetically men have a flatter and longer bell curve than women. This designed to ensure that most women can carry a child as a few successful men can repopulate an area with a proportionately large group of women. Genetically men take risks, the rational is that the unfortunate men at the bottom of the pile have DNA that might be useful if the environment changes massively or a new virus encounters the species and that women pick the best men to father their children and the rest to be fathers to their children.

As it happens there is an environmental factor which requires men's long flat bell curve and it is called endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). EDCs, such as environmental estrogens, are hypothesized to be associated with a global decrease in sperm counts, other male reproductive tract problems and increasing rates of female breast cancer. They are common and found in food addititive and growth promoters or general chemicals such as those found in babies bottles. This is such a problem that a couple of hundred scientists signed a declaration in Prague on the thing.

It goes something like this: men's estrogen count increases while their testosterone stays the same as they are not connected. So the relative proportion of testosterone decreases and sperm counts drop. In women their estrogen levels increase but they have a regulator that pumps out more testosterone from the pituitary gland. In absolute terms they have more testosterone thus retarding breast development.

The biggest change is that the normal sex ratio of 51:49 (male:female) over the last ten years has changed. Subtlety only by a few percentage points, but important for the affected countries: USA, Russia, Canada, the UK, the Netherlands and Taiwan. An extreme example is Sarina Canada where the 51:49 ratio has changed to 32:68.

There is a plus side in that few men will be fighting, but more women will be testosterone filled. If you like the L word then this could be an opportunity, but if it is only a programme then now might be the time to lock him up as in ten years time there might be few hundred million 18 year olds looking for a rich and cultured European working* man with a bit of property under his belt*! Well I guess there is nothing to worry about after all.

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/10517/suppl.pdf
http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/espr/Pdf/aId/7527
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor
http://www.womentowomen.com/detoxification/endocrinedisruptors.aspx
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Consensus/2005-0620praguedeclaration.htm
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscience/reproduction/sexratio/sexratio.htm

Black Swan

Does all this mean... No free drink?

nkay1985

Quarter to five - way too detailed for me to understand right now lol

Gordon

My bell curve isn't flat. Long maybe, but not flat.

Wibbs

Treora wrote: »

This is something I feel all women already truly knew, but there is more to it. Genetically men have a flatter and longer bell curve than women. This designed to ensure that most women can carry a child as a few successful men can repopulate an area with a proportionately large group of women. Genetically men take risks, the rational is that the unfortunate men at the bottom of the pile have DNA that might be useful if the environment changes massively or a new virus encounters the species and that women pick the best men to father their children and the rest to be fathers to their children.

The problem of seeing superiority in that is that while women on average may be better, that genetic risk taking will mean some men will always out perform most women. You see that in schools, women do better on average then men, but the top percentile of the class are usually male. That goes through life too.

As it happens there is an environmental factor which requires men's long flat bell curve and it is called endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). EDCs, such as environmental estrogens, are hypothesized to be associated with a global decrease in sperm counts, other male reproductive tract problems and increasing rates of female breast cancer. They are common and found in food addititive and growth promoters or general chemicals such as those found in babies bottles. This is such a problem that a couple of hundred scientists signed a declaration in Prague on the thing.

I agree that stuff is worrying. Testicular cancer alone has jumped in prevalance in the last 30 years. I remember reading an article about dropping sperm counts with the title "you're not half the man your grandfather was".

In absolute terms they have more testosterone thus retarding breast development.

Yet women's bust size has increased and at an earlier age than when these chemicals were non existent.

Well I guess there is nothing to worry about after all.

So long as I'm the one in ten I'm figuring not.

Wibbs

This happens here too. Those chemicals of which you speak. I personally saw examples of feminised sterile male trout(of all things) a few years back that had grown much bigger than normal due to to this stuf in the water. Scary stuff.

Nevyn

Ah but how much of that gobal ratio is skewed due to china and other asain countries single child policy and the aborting of so many female fetuses or the abandoment of female infants.

or the new idea that a Hep B vacine could be also to blame.

http://www.slate.com/id/2119402/

Kintarō Hattori

And they say women don't have a sense of humour. Who would have thought.

Reku

Treora wrote: »

This is something I feel all women already truly knew, but there is more to it. Genetically men have a flatter and longer bell curve than women. This designed to ensure that most women can carry a child as a few successful men can repopulate an area with a proportionately large group of women. ....................................................................................................................................................
The biggest change is that the normal sex ratio of 51:49 (male:female) over the last ten years has changed. Subtlety only by a few percentage points, but important for the affected countries: USA, Russia, Canada, the UK, the Netherlands and Taiwan. An extreme example is Sarina Canada where the 51:49 ratio has changed to 32:68.

So basically guys are so awesome it takes less men to get the job done.
Or more likely that dodgy aim with regards the toilet bowl applies to other things....


It's amusing that there's regularly the whole blame game against men for all of womens' problems yet here they are covertly engaging in mass sterilisation of the male gender as one of the main suspects for the increasing oestrogen in males is the female contraceptive pill failing to be completely metabolised and so these artificial hormones getting into the water ways and eventually back into the taps. *queue ominous music*

Professor Skakkebaek and Dr Sharpe have proposed many factors for increased oestrogen uptake and exposure since the Forties: dietary changes with increased consumption of hormone-rich dairy produce; synthetic oestrogens in the contraceptive Pill and other drugs

http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/iju/vol2n1/sperm.xml


From what I read above is it not also a fair assumption that the increasing prevalence of PCOS is possibly also connected? They ingest more oestrogen, so they have to pump out more testosterone, which when the oestrogen from the ingested source fades needs to be balenced so the body adopts a constant state of elevated testosterone and oestrogen, which although on a global level balence they can produce localised effects on the cells they are meant to interact with. My understanding of the endocrine system is a bit lacking so I may be just grasping at straws here....

MrBean

A single man contains the DNA to repopulate an entire planet (with the right technology), whereas a single woman, with no men in existence, cannot. Men have both X and Y chromosomes, whereas women have only X. This means that women can come from men, but men cannot come from women. A single man, with the technology to create other human beings from his DNA could create both men and women. Cell haploidization technology is approaching the point at which both sperm and eggs can be produced from skin cells of a human being of either sex. However, the 'sperm' created from a woman's skin cell could only be used to make women. A man with the same technology could create both men and women, due to the fact that he has both X and Y chromosomes.

Another argument for male genetic superiortiy: Men, on average are more intelligent. Most people perhaps believe otherwise, since women have been outperforming men in schools. However, there are more male than female geniuses per person of each gender. In fact, the higher one goes up the IQ ladder, men are more and more prevalent over women. This skews average IQ in favor of men. Since it is the geniuses of society who guide the direction of societal change, and most geniuses, world leaders, etc, are men, it seems that the statement that 'women are genetically superior' is fundamentally flawed and cannot be true.

Treora

MrBean wrote: »

A single man, with the technology to create other human beings from his DNA could create both men and women.

This is a double edged sword. Men are the main activators in physical clashes. So having a world solely populated by women would lead to less deaths, but probably become over populated that much quicker. Nature tends to resolve such issues rather quickly. Virii, change in hormonal patterns and though many people don't like this fact - suicide.

MrBean wrote: »

Men have both X and Y chromosomes, whereas women have only X.

The Y chromosome is a faulty chromosome used productively. This is a case of nature making use of whatever comes its way.

MrBean wrote: »

Men, on average are more intelligent. Most people perhaps believe otherwise, since women have been outperforming men in schools. ... In fact, the higher one goes up the IQ ladder, men are more and more prevalent over women. ... Since it is the geniuses of society who guide the direction of societal change, and most geniuses, world leaders, etc, are men, it seems that the statement that 'women are genetically superior' is fundamentally flawed and cannot be true.

If you overlap the bell curves of men's and women's intelligence then you will notice that men and women are on average identically intelligent ... yes this is true, but many are autistic. And their single mindedness and localised creativity does place men at the centre of many technological advances. Though with changing hormonal patterns one should expect more women to enter that area. ... IQ and world leaders have nothing to do with one another, just look at Ahern and Bush (unless the current state of affairs was their intention).

Oh Mr. Bean where is you sense of humour. IQ but no EQ!

Nevyn

The Y chormosome is a mutation.
Hurrah for it most of the time but still it's a mutation.

Women have more connections between the two hemispheres of the brain,
and an additional layer of skin in comparison to men.
Enough said.

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

and an additional layer of skin in comparison to men.

And it appears they may need it at times around here........

As for this thread. The dead arose and spoke to many... Closed. If anyone wants to stir/posit a new angle on this, start a new one