No. Humanism, feminism, communism will always fail because they are incompatible with human nature.And included in that adaptability is an ability to modulate some of our baser instincts (at least for some of us). Mostly, the ones that don't matter. (I mean the people who don't matter - leftists.)
No. Humanism, feminism, communism will always fail because they are incompatible with human nature.You generalize from a seed of truth to create a grand distorted worldview that is grossly untrue. You forget that humans have been uniquely provided by nature and cultural development with adaptability. And included in that adaptability is an ability to modulate some of our baser instincts (at least for some of us). Mostly, the ones that don't matter. (I mean the people who don't matter - leftists.) Ohhhh, I am very slightly offended that you think I don't matter. I think you matter.
No. Humanism, feminism, communism will always fail because they are incompatible with human nature.You generalize from a seed of truth to create a grand distorted worldview that is grossly untrue. You forget that humans have been uniquely provided by nature and cultural development with adaptability. And included in that adaptability is an ability to modulate some of our baser instincts (at least for some of us). Mostly, the ones that don't matter. (I mean the people who don't matter - leftists.) Ohhhh, I am very slightly offended that you think I don't matter. I think you matter.That doesn't matter.
... Men are not biochemically suited for this behavior. Unless of course they're effeminate men, which means their women will leave them soon.Yours and George's perspective on this is better suited to a pre-industrial society with a small population of humans. Too bad for you that society is unlikely to regress that much in your lifetime. Oh, and in the actual world that exists today (not your fantasy of a world where all humans are driven exclusively by their levels of testosterone or androgen) there are all sorts of pairings of mates. A high level of testosterone isn't sufficient of itself (unless it is at toxic levels) to prevent a real man from bonding with his children and being a competent caregiver. Men who have testosterone toxicity aren't much use to anyone, except maybe as cannon fodder. http://www.oocities.org/musician_in_residence/testosterone.html Their perspective is best suited to a Neanderthal society. Their "thinking" has never progressed beyond that of primitive man and they prove it with every post. I expect they're both beating their chests and bleating in triumph right now. Lois
If you took it that personally....maybe else something is going on there. Just saying, hoss!And, pray tell, how am I to take it when you say I have low testosterone and my wife cheats on me? Especially when you have no knowledge of what is happening in my life? The "other thing" going on is that you and George are speaking from ignorance and making sweeping generalizations from that ignorance.
If you don’t want to make it personal, Darron, try not to be the first one next time who makes it personal. I ignored your comment suggesting I should examine my values in your first post, but when you did it again in your second post telling me how I don’t belong in the 21st century, I decided to defend myself. As far as I can tell, a fair game. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t play.
The difference is I was speaking truth, you were spouting bullshit. Show me the peer-reviewed studies proving your assertion that men whose wives make more money than them have low testosterone.
What, you have a peer-reviewed study to prove I don’t belong in the 21st century? 
That was an opinion, George. Do I need to explain to you the difference between an opinion and a factual claim?
Some of those statements are fairly innocuous posturing but 4,5, and 6 are just knuckle dragging idiotic comments and non-comments. All things being equal, everyone (not just women) deserves equal pay for doing the same job. Obviously if someone takes off 5 years to do something else and comes back with less seniority that will result in lower pay in some areas of employment but all things being equal pay should be equal regardless of gender or anything else. I've never been a fan of seniority anyway so I'm not sure that is even a good excuse. If you're a new employee and do a better job than me but I've been there for 10 years you should get paid the same or more than me because obviously I am not as productive or as valuable to the company or organization. If a man or woman takes a leave of absence and then come back and makes a big contribution they should get paid according to their contribution not according to how long they kept a seat warm. The problem is that there still exists a moronic attitude that men need to be paid more or that women don't care about their income as much and unfortunately many of the people in positions of power are the same idiots with that mind set. That needs to be fixed and if it can't be fixed through education then it needs to be fixed through legislation as imperfect as that fix will be. It constantly amazes me that Bill O'Reilly can add to his long string of brainless comments day after day and still find a huge audience to listen to him and cheer his remarks.Seniority was brought into union negotiations because companies would often fire an employee with seniority for no reason but that he was earning more money than a new hire would. That way a company could improve its bottom line with little effort. It probably doesn't work quite as well with jobs that require much skill, but it does work to make the workplace fairer. The idea of seniority rules was born, to create a fairer workplace where power between management and labor was extremely uneven . There were other reasons behind firing people with seniority, including favoritism and keeping workers from demanding more pay or better working conditions. Seniority rules work in unskilled labor and sometimes in more skilled labor. How seniority works is often a matter of negotiation between labor and management and it is a needed protection to lower skilled labor. When anyone says, "I was never a fan of seniority," you can be sure that the speaker is unlikely to have worked as a laborer or had parents who had to work as laborers. Before unions, labor had very few protections. They are always at the mercy of the employer. The seniority system helped even up the odds for workers who were being exploited. The seniority system prevented employers from threatening to fire employees for even asking for a raise or demanding better working conditions. Employers still managed to abuse and threaten employees, but the seniority system gave workers the least bit of traction in labor negotiations. It's usually white collar workers, professionals and employers who fail to see see the value of the seniority system because they have never experienced the kind of exploitation blue collar workers often did and do to this day. Lois
What, you have a peer-reviewed study to prove I don't belong in the 21st century? :-)That wouldn't take a peer-reviewed study. It's completely obvious to anyone with at least half a functioning brain. Lois
Seniority was brought into union negotiations because companies would often fire an employee with seniority for no reason but that he was earning more money than a new hire would. That way a company could improve its bottom line with little effort. It probably doesn't work quite as well with jobs that require much skill, but it does work to make the workplace fairer. The idea of seniority rules was born, to create a fairer workplace where power between management and labor was extremely uneven . There were other reasons behind firing people with seniority, including favoritism and keeping workers from demanding more pay or better working conditions. Seniority rules work in unskilled labor and sometimes in more skilled labor. How seniority works is often a matter of negotiation between labor and management and it is a needed protection to lower skilled labor. When anyone says, "I was never a fan of seniority," you can be sure that the speaker is unlikely to have worked as a laborer or had parents who had to work as laborers. Before unions, labor had very few protections. They are always at the mercy of the employer. The seniority system helped even up the odds for workers who were being exploited. The seniority system prevented employers from threatening to fire employees for even asking for a raise or demanding better working conditions. Employers still managed to abuse and threaten employees, but the seniority system gave workers the least bit of traction in labor negotiations. It's usually white collar workers, professionals and employers who fail to see see the value of the seniority system because they have never experienced the kind of exploitation blue collar workers often did and do to this day. LoisThis subject is off topic but just to clarify my position. Lois, I can see the merit in your argument but as with all things there are unintended consquences to this approach. I may not be a laborer now but I did work as one at times. In addition my grandfather was a laborer all of his life and I have several members of my family who are municipal workers so i frequently hear about the "advantages" of seniority now that they are the most senior members in their workplace . The problem with seniority is that it invariably results in higher paid older workers becoming less effective and less productive and newer low paid workers being forced to work longer hours, night shifts, holidays, less desirable positions even though they may be better workers. While it may solve some problems, in many cases Seniority encourages Mediocrity. It also reinforces a demoralizing pecking order which some workers see as their right, but which is degrading to newer workers. I can see your point but the seniority system is a far from perfect solution to the problem that creates its own set of problems. I am not saying we should throw it out since I don't have a more perfect solution to replace it with but its something that deserves some thought and reconsideration. Unfortunately because senior members of unions have a lot of power and this is seen as an entitlement I am doubtful that it would ever be changed.
What, you have a peer-reviewed study to prove I don't belong in the 21st century? :-)That wouldn't take a peer-reviewed study. It's completely obvious to everyone with half a functioning brain. Lois Ok :-)
Seniority was brought into union negotiations because companies would often fire an employee with seniority for no reason but that he was earning more money than a new hire would. That way a company could improve its bottom line with little effort. It probably doesn't work quite as well with jobs that require much skill, but it does work to make the workplace fairer. The idea of seniority rules was born, to create a fairer workplace where power between management and labor was extremely uneven . There were other reasons behind firing people with seniority, including favoritism and keeping workers from demanding more pay or better working conditions. Seniority rules work in unskilled labor and sometimes in more skilled labor. How seniority works is often a matter of negotiation between labor and management and it is a needed protection to lower skilled labor. When anyone says, "I was never a fan of seniority," you can be sure that the speaker is unlikely to have worked as a laborer or had parents who had to work as laborers. Before unions, labor had very few protections. They are always at the mercy of the employer. The seniority system helped even up the odds for workers who were being exploited. The seniority system prevented employers from threatening to fire employees for even asking for a raise or demanding better working conditions. Employers still managed to abuse and threaten employees, but the seniority system gave workers the least bit of traction in labor negotiations. It's usually white collar workers, professionals and employers who fail to see see the value of the seniority system because they have never experienced the kind of exploitation blue collar workers often did and do to this day. LoisThis subject is off topic but just to clarify my position. Lois, I can see the merit in your argument but as with all things there are unintended consquences to this approach. I may not be a laborer now but I did work as one at times. In addition my grandfather was a laborer all of his life and I have several members of my family who are municipal workers so i frequently hear about the "advantages" of seniority now that they are the most senior members in their workplace . The problem with seniority is that it invariably results in higher paid older workers becoming less effective and less productive and newer low paid workers being forced to work longer hours, night shifts, holidays, less desirable positions even though they may be better workers. While it may solve some problems, in many cases Seniority encourages Mediocrity. It also reinforces a demoralizing pecking order which some workers see as their right, but which is degrading to newer workers. I can see your point but the seniority system is a far from perfect solution to the problem that creates its own set of problems. I am not saying we should throw it out since I don't have a more perfect solution to replace it with but its something that deserves some thought and reconsideration. Unfortunately because senior members of unions have a lot of power and this is seen as an entitlement I am doubtful that it would ever be changed. It isn't off topic. It is a valuable view. There are no perfect solutions, but in my experience the seniority system solves more problems than it creates in most cases. There are always exceptions. Some companies will become top heavy with less productive workers, but not having a seniority system tends to lower pay and create poor working conditions. And it has a detrimental effect on society, too. I may be somewhat prejudiced because I come from a long line of laborers: coal miners, railroad workers and factory workers. Only my and my parent's generation (and not all of them) and, of course my children's generation managed to attain higher education work at better jobs with opportunities for advancement. To really understand what the laboring classes face you'd have to be permanently stuck in it, with hardly any opportunity to get out of it, trying to make a living for your family and being cut off at the pass at every turn. Some people think that anyone can get out if they just set their mind to it, but it seldom works that way. There are too many other factors involved that most people have no control over. Lois
Show me the peer-reviewed studies proving your assertion that men whose wives make more money than them have low testosterone.No one said men who make less money then their women have lower testosterone. George and me agreed that men who take on more feminine roles in a relationship are more likely to have low testosterone, and be cheated on. There are studies that show lower testosterone in modern "house husbands." While all males have a decrease in testosterone production after they become fathers, the males who assume primary caregiver roles for their kids have even lower testosterone levels. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/health/research/13testosterone.html?_r=1& http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2013/09/11/do-better-fathers-really-have-smaller-testicles/
A related study on how egalitarian relationships suffer sexually.
Mid neither of the two studies you listed support your comment that “While all males have a decrease in testosterone production after they become fathers, the males who assume primary caregiver roles for their kids have even lower testosterone levels.”
The first study just states that men who have children have lower testosterone levels and the second simply states that men with smaller testical make better fathers. It says nothing about testosterone levels nor does it support the conclusion that the tesitcle of men who assume primary caregiver roles make less testosterone. It doesn’t even provide evidence for cause and effect ( It could be that smaller testicle make them better fathers or maybe some other factor makes testicles smaller and makes for better fathers)
Finally I need to make an important point here. Testosterone levels are essentially meaningless regardless of common wisdom and misleading commercials for testosterone supplements. Small differences in testosterone have no affect on any of the characteristics we would associate with manliness. I could line up ten men with low testosterone levels and ten with high levels and I guarantee no one here would be able to tell which man fell into which group. So although the intent of the original comment was to imply that men who have more equal relationships with their wives are somehow less of a man because his testosterone levels are lower this not supported by the science.
Finally the last study you sited about more egalitarian relationships having less sex is fraught with all sorts of mine fields. This is a simple observational study. Its impossible to draw cause and effect conclusions from these sorts of studies and when people do they generally tend to draw the conclusion that fits their world view. There are multiple other possible interpretations. In addition to the conclusion you are implying, It is possible that men and women who are less interested in sex are more interested in choosing partners who meet their needs intellectually. Its also possible that families with two working partners work longer hours or more demanding jobs that reduce the number of opportunities for sexual activity. Husbands who see their wives more as equals may also be more likely to take their partners needs into consideration and less likely to demand or even force sex from their spouse when their partner isn’t receptive. You have to be very careful about drawing any conclusions from these sorts of studies.
MacGyver, Do you mean it’s not okay to draw conclusions from such correlational studies that men’s balls will shrink if they change diapers, and that there wives will then leave them for a manly man, and thus, in the natural course of evolution, the girly men will ultimately be weeded out and then all will be right with the worldview of people who think women should not get equal pay for equal work?
MacGyver, Do you mean it's not okay to draw conclusions from such correlational studies that men's balls will shrink if they change diapers, and that there wives will then leave them for a manly man, and thus, in the natural course of evolution, the girly men will ultimately be weeded out and then all will be right with the worldview of people who think women should not get equal pay for equal work?Ha! Excellent analysis! Many imply that. Lois
The first study just states that men who have children have lower testosterone levels and the second simply states that men with smaller testical make better fathers. It says nothing about testosterone levels nor does it support the conclusion that the tesitcle of men who assume primary caregiver roles make less testosterone.Did you miss this part - "And men who spent more than three hours a day caring for children — playing, feeding, bathing, toileting, reading or dressing them — had the lowest testosterone."