1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
It's because more information is encoded on the X chromosome then the Y, having two copies of the X chromosome makes it less likely for a mutation in that chromosome to cause cancer because there's another non-defective copy to potentially diminish the mutation's effect.
However stupid shit like that probably sways the needle as well.
The Y chromosome is also deteriorating over time as it gets passed down with errors and doesn’t have a backup copy nor relevant genes to swap with, and men have less robust immune systems (iirc partially because of testosterone). So that’s fun.
To call the natural process of mutation, literally one of the requirements for any genetic evolutionary progress, "deteriorating" is, at best, short sighted. Most mutations do nothing, most of the ones that do something don't occur in the one sperm that makes it into the ovum, and most of those that do something and make it into the ovum cause an early termination before birth. Some of those that get through all of these hurdles are the ones that cause random genetic variation and increased diversity, without which we actually DO get things like Hemophilia or other sex-linked issues going rampant in any given gene pool. Evolution takes a LONG time to work, but it requires wet and moldable clay to sculpt.
I mean it’s literally shrinking over time.. deteriorating. It will very likely eventually become useless, and die out.
I guess you can call that evolution if you want.. it’s certainly a selection pressure, anyway.
https://www.earth.com/news/will-men-disappear-the-y-chromosome-is-constantly-shrinking/
Thank you for the clarification! I was wondering if you meant literal shrinking, like telomeres, but over generations. I retract my former complaint!
But did he succeeded? I have to know! What is the end of the story???
It’s Top Gear, so it failed spectacularly.
On that terrible disappointment
So it's not coming on then?
peak british comedy
Ambitious but rubbish
And on that terrible disappointment...
It was sadly not dry enough.
Nah, it was damp.
Yeah that thing with the lighter was never gonna do anything, but I'll bet it sounded exciting in the commercials. I wouldn't know, I haven't had TV in like 8 years.
"I've broken Stalin's house... I'm going to the Gulags"
Ha ha. But seriously men's lives are just worth less than women's so society as a whole spends them much more lightly.
I guess in the sense that men are the default for people sent into war while women very rare are. Dunno what other examples there are
No fault divorce, the man vs bear argument, child support laws, alimony laws, lack of support for abuse against men, etc. There's plenty to show we don't value men as much as women.
I don't understand the significance of the first one
No fault divorce? Just that women initiate 70% of divorces, and they can divorce for any reason, including boredom. And then those other things I mentioned generally come into play next.
A lot of men are staying away from marriage now, and the sentiment I keep hearing is "why would I enter into a legal contract where one party is rewarded for breaking it?"
Wouldn't it be worse to trap someone in a relationship that they aren't enjoying? And isn't it a sign that many women aren't enjoying their marriage if they initiate 70% of divorces? We should look into why they aren't happy, not force them to stay when they aren't.
That's a problem solving mentality. Some women are not interested in solving problems, they are interested in being excited. The high divorce rate increases with gay female couples and decreases with gay male couples.
Wouldn't it be worse to trap someone in a relationship that they aren't enjoying?
What you call trapped, I call commitment. We may as well just not get married then, to do the women the great honor of not trapping them. Especially if there is no upside for men.
I don't define love by feelings in my tummy, I define it by the actions you take to put someone's needs ahead of your own. Feelings change by the year, by the week, by the day, by the moment. No stable family will survive if it simply operates based on the whims of emotions.
This just sounds like those other things should be fixed instead of trying to find one person to assign blame to in a divorce.
Well personally, I think the vows you make when you marry should be treated as a contract. I mean it sounds as much like a verbal contract as can possibly exist. Which would make the person who breaks the contract the person at fault.
You may as well say we should get rid of all contracts in general instead of trying to find someone to blame in the event of breach. A noble sentiment, but not particularly practical.
It just seems like a lot of work for courts to try and find out which partner made the personal relationship such that it ended, how much of it was from which partner, what was the real personal life of a couple and so on. Just seems a bit ludicrous for a court to be dealing with.
Not all contracts are made equal. But I guess a simple fix would be to have "until one side wants to end the partnership" in there. Though I think isn't that what the law already says?
It’s all comes down to money and assets. The way it works in the US is, broadly, they get half of your shit unless you signed a prenup.
This is ironically a callback to old school patriarchal structures where a woman divorcing her husband often did not have any marketable skill sets because they were housewives. The courts saw fit to have the husband continue providing for them until they are self supporting- conceptually.
It’s all comes down to money and assets. The way it works in the US is, broadly, they get half of your shit unless you signed a prenup.
That is a weird way of putting it. In a marriage, it is both of your stuff, which is why it is not so unreasonable to divide it equally. Obviously if you have only been married for a day then this is not so just, but I think for this reason that in some localities not everything you own immediately transitions to being co-owned.
This is ironically a callback to old school patriarchal structures where a woman divorcing her husband often did not have any marketable skill sets because they were housewives. The courts saw fit to have the husband continue providing for them until they are self supporting- conceptually.
That is alimony, which is a separate thing that only applies I'm this specific case.
So... just to be clear, if a woman really did not want to be in a marriage with you, you are saying that you would do everything in your power to force her to stay?
No I'm saying the person who ends the marriage shouldn't get anything. And I'm saying you shouldn't marry someone you would leave.
So you are saying that if you turn out to be such a bad spouse that you make your partner so miserable that they absolutely have to leave the marriage, then you should get to keep everything and they should get nothing?
Why would you marry a bad spouse? You should figure that out before you marry them.
How about this, what's the point of marriage? If it can be discarded at a whim, what does it mean in the first place?
I mean the problem with this entire discussion is marriage has no standard meaning anymore. Traditionalists think of it as a sacred vow, taking till Death do us part very seriously. Others think of it as some irrelevant social construct and an excuse to have a party.
I'm in the camp of it's forever or it it's pointless. Life is change. People change. The work that goes into marriage is the work of ensuring you grow together, not grow apart. I wouldn't marry anyone that didn't agree.
I guess that's the bottom line. Make sure you both define marriage the same way before you get married. Which sounds obvious but... ::gestures around::
Why would you marry a bad spouse? You should figure that out before you marry them.
So you are saying that everyone has a perfect ability to flawlessly determine whether another person is a good spouse for them or not? That is an impressive feat, especially considering that, by definition, said person cannot be their spouse until they have already married them, making evaluation difficult.
(Of course, a partial solution to this is to live with a potential marriage partner for several years beforehand in order to get a chance to at least do a thorough evaluation, but this is not a solution that "traditionalists" tend to be happy with.)
How about this, what’s the point of marriage? If it can be discarded at a whim, what does it mean in the first place?
Divorce is not that easy or cheap, even when it is no-fault. It is hardly ever something done "at a whim"--outside of places like Vegas where people also tend to get married on a whim, in addition to making other bad life choices.
I mean the problem with this entire discussion is marriage has no standard meaning anymore. Traditionalists think of it as a sacred vow, taking till Death do us part very seriously. Others think of it as some irrelevant social construct and an excuse to have a party.
I doubt that there are nearly as many people in the latter camp as you seem to think that there are, especially given that marriage has legal ramifications, making it nontrivial to get out of even under the best of circumstances (again, unless maybe you got married on a whim in Vegas).
I’m in the camp of it’s forever or it it’s pointless. Life is change. People change. The work that goes into marriage is the work of ensuring you grow together, not grow apart. I wouldn’t marry anyone that didn’t agree.
This presumes that both spouses act in good faith, which will not always be the case. One spouse may not turn out to be as committed as the other spouse in practice in putting in this work, and this is the kind of thing that is not easy to find out until years in, so declaring that "You should figure that out before you marry them." is both callous and impractical.
In the most extreme case of bad faith, one of the spouses might reveal themselves over time to be an abuser, and this might not even be obvious to the outside world if the abuse is emotional rather than physical so that there are no bruises that can be pointed to for proof. So your proposal that the abused spouse not have the freedom to walk away from the marriage without immediately losing everything to their abuser--unless perhaps they are allowed go through an ugly and painful legal battle to prove that they are being emotionally been abused by their spouse and therefore their spouse is at fault in which case they might be allowed to walk away without losing everything--is incredibly cruel.
In fact, let me be really explicit about what I am getting at here: the real risk, as I see it, is not that you will marry someone else who will divorce you "at a whim", but that someone else will marry you, after which it will turn out that you are the asshole in that relationship, and, based on the things you have just said in this thread, you will then do everything in your power to trap your spouse in that marriage. This is a big reason why no-fault divorce laws exist: to protect other people from you.
Of course, if you disagree with me and you believe that the real risk is that you will marry someone else who will change their mind and discard you on a whim, and not the scenario I described in the previous paragraph, then I would suggest that "You should figure that out before you marry them." If you do that successfully, after all, then what do you have to fear?
I personally think that marriage is a scam in the first place. I've witness 20 years sweethearts split after 2-3 years of marriage. Dunno what could've have changed after.
So I'm staying away of that shit although I'm well aware that is something important for my sweetheart. We'll have to find a middle term someday. Maybe throw a party with the fam and call it a marriage, I dunno, something like that.
alimony laws
Are those generally gender-specific?
I think women and children first would be a similar thing
Are you saying that society treats them as worth less or that you believe they're worth less?