?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Tue, Nov. 11th, 2003, 12:31 pm
Kill, Kill, Kill, Yet Again

From the New York Times science section:

But advancing chromosomal recombination is the point of sex, and advancing sex is the point of pheromones, courtship displays, the taking of female captives in war and romantic love. Consequently, said Dr. David C. Page, a specialist in Y chromosomes at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., without males there would not only be no war, but also "no poetry, literature, music, advertising or fashion." "A Thousand Clones" makes lousy drama.


Uh huh. So - entirely leaving aside the whole lesbian thing - without men, women aren't capable of aspiration, inspiration, adventure, excitement, or deep feeling. I can't tell whether he's implying that there are no appropriate subjects for music, literature, etc. than the male ideas he mentions, or whether he's implying that women just aren't capable of creating those things without the impetus of men around.

People ask me why I'm so fucking annoyed all the time when people talk about love and sex like it's the most important thing in the universe; it's people like "Dr." Page, who seem to think there's nothing else to aspire to, and his fucking implications about the incapacity of women.

Fuckity fuck.

Tue, Nov. 11th, 2003 11:32 am (UTC)
hakamadare

i would point out that by that argument, there would also be no war, poetry, literature, music, advertising, or fashion without women. thus, from the snippet that you've presented, it seems that he's not arguing so much for the relative uselessness of women, but rather for the fact that this world would be significantly less interesting if it contained only one gender.

of course, it's possible that his actual argument is considerably more offensive, but to discover that would require effort, and i'm lazy. and after reading this turd from Kim du Toit, i think i've done my monthly quota of putting out effort to read infuriating, depressing crap. :)

-steve

Tue, Nov. 11th, 2003 12:41 pm (UTC)
kleenestar

I'd be just as annoyed if he were arguing that it would be no good without women - but that's not what he actually said, so I get to rage with both my X chromosomes. -g-

I think I'm actually more upset by the idea that sex and romantic love is what it's all about, in the end; I've never believed in 'love conquers all' or 'love as deepest inspiration' or any of that.

Wed, Nov. 12th, 2003 06:31 am (UTC)
(Anonymous)

My god, he looks like an evil version of Michael Moore! And just as if not more arrogant and hypocritical.

Leaving aside the fact that this guy is, after all, a biologist, and his view is therefore at least 50% understandable and by some definitions correct... Love, religion, philosophy and personal and manifest destiny all plug the same hole, neh? But the first is the most universally accessible.

- Kith