Colin, please feel free to contribute your solution to this problem you’ve described!

With all the species in the world competing for survival for over four billion years with no fair play, it was inevitable that eventually there would appear an ultimate predator that would be able to game the entire system of life on earth to its advantage. And that’s us.

There is no higher power that “damages” embryos by making them male. The only power capable of damage is men themselves who, in direct opposition to the capability of ultimate dominance that characterizes the human species, CHOOSE to cede power to the otherwise vanquished tendency of male aggression, and assault other people.

The human species has already taken its behavior, in many ways, vastly beyond what any other animal is capable of. If you’re really an expert in bioculture, you should have a reasonably accurate theory of how we achieved this, why we make an exception by allowing male violence to remain, and most importantly how to get rid of that exception. That is, literally, THE biggest enigma of human society; and you didn’t say one word about it.

i mean the 1in3/1in4 is 100% true despite the gal who came up with it deciding people who said they had never been raped, where rape victims..

anyway…i say we cut off male genitals at birth , and start feeding them female hormones, that should prevent damage caused by allowing males to excist…after all, we are all rapists/murderrs/etc.

“I prefer to think of men as supercharged women. If the entire human race had been women, we’d still be living in caves IMO.”

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not, however, entitled to express an opinion such as this and assume people will not think you are an ass.

Also, I’ve lived in caves, and I think you haven’t. You may be underestimating the quality of cave life.

Although biologically women become male at the end of their child bearing years. Facial hair, et al. Why else HRT?

This is the problem of using science to support an unscientific ideological stance.

Genetic disorders are more prevalent the older the father is, because genetic damage happens when the sperm are copied, and this is more and more prevalent as the male ages since the sperm are copied anew. Eggs are not copied, and only direct damage results in change.

“Hah! So all the genetic problems are YOUR fault!”

Yeah, though when women are past their child bearing age, they “should” be abandoned. You don’t keep the cornflakes packet once it’s empty, do you.

The problem here being “both sides” I have parodied above are treating people like their biological facts, not like fellow humans.

You can use biology to make policy decisions when social mores are conflicted or inappliccable (cf abortion. Two humans at risk here, even if you take pro life, so how to choose? Well would the new life be independent and viable is a biological and medical call that can decide because we can’t weigh up two innocent lives and find one less worthy without social problems), but you should not use that to replace the fact that they are still humans being talked about.

MRAs have misogynists like feminists have misandrists. Both sides have mostly people neither, but both sides can point to the fringe and point out they’re “one of them”. Both know inside their own group this isn’t true, but there’s no real knowledge of both parties. Their worldviews do not overlap.

And worldview includes the idea that feminism is “equality for everybody”, but this is neither in the definition of the word, nor borne out by their actions. When mens’ rights are being discussed (a classic example was about male suicide rates), it was banned by a huge massive protest you can find on youtube easily with people (male and female) shouting that anyone attending was a miscogynist. After all, feminism was “equality for everyone”, so only a woman hater would talk about men’s issues or rights, right?

Yet, because STILL it was the dogma of the group identity that feminism was equality for everyone (and ignoring the, for feminism, quite reasonable unspoken coda “but lets sort out giving women the rights they’ve still not got first, eh?”), they KNEW MRAs were only a cover story for the raging anti-women bigots. After all, they see lots of those bigots talk about mens’ rights, so proof, yes.

And, of course, those feminists giggling and planning the death of all men in the near future when procreation did not require insemination were not feminists but either trolls or just joshing.

When you self-identify as good with your ideology rather than yourself (and know with the caveat that you’re most likely to fool yourself when it comes to self-image), whether religion or secular ideology, you will start making demons out of anyone not agreeing.

MRAs want to talk about inequality men face. Feminists think this is a smokescreen

a) they already want equality!
b) men are already “in charge”. What do they need rights for?

And, where it is reasonable for feminism to want to drag attention to womens’ rights and mens’ rights to be dealt with is either unrelated or distracts lawmaking, modern feminism wants to be for both so that only their platform is in place.

Like heretics, the orthodoxy does not condone a different view of what’s wanted. And one sect encourages their view as right and valid by making their sole avenue the moral choice and alternatives the immoral one. It’s just easier to deal with black and white binary issues. Intersectional rights aren’t really worth confusing yourself on. Simplex, not multiplex thinking.