Would it be wrong for women to genetically engineer men who aren't dominant?

Women have suffered a lot over the years. Women have been forced to become maids and caretakers, even when they weren't so inclined. They've been discriminated against and forced out of the workplace, and prevented from doing jobs they're interested in because they're women.

Women have been beaten and abused by the men in their lives - fathers, brothers, husbands and sons. Women have been raped and killed, both by men they know, and by maurading strangers.

Women have put up with a LOT to ensure the survival of the species.

Now that medical technology has advanced to the point that genetically engineered children are possible, would it be ethical to create men who aren't dominant and abusive?

What would be the effects of this on society?

Yes, it would be wrong.

Because if they did, they would have to go to horses or donkeys to be dominated, and we can't make any babys that way now can we.

Women can ask themselves why they have a full set of ribs and all men have minus one rib. Then they can shut up.

There are plenty of men to choose from.

If you want a man that can't dominate you choose a small nonathletic nerd.

Then you'll be happy and it won't involve any genetic engineering

reply to post by Rocambole


I guess you won't be passing any anatomy tests in the near future.

Several Anatomy and Physiology textbooks. All agree that, based on medical research (somebody actually dissected cadavers and counted ribs, somebody actually looked at x-rays and counted ribs), men and women have the same number of ribs as each other. For example, one book says:

Twelve pairs of flexible, archlike ribs form the lateral portions of the thoracic cage. They increase in length from the first to the seventh and then decrease again from the eighth to the twelfth.

answers.yahoo.com...

reply to post by Wildbob77


A little touchy about the subject, are we?

They already have a way of making men less dominant, and it doesn't require any genetic engineering. It's called "marriage."

Ba-doomp chick!

In the same respect, can we genetically modify women to be stronger? I mean where I used to work men and women were paid the same, although all the back straining work had to be done by the men and women were automatically excused. Is that fair?

It personally didn't bother me too much, but just using it as an example. None of us are perfect, so i'd just deal with it. We all have our positives and negatives.

Women tend to gossip/shop/complain quite a bit. Is it ok for us men to genetically engineer that out of them?

The same answer applies to the OP's question.

Gave this post a little thought before responding. Do I think it is unethical? Yes. It is as unethical as your misleading post implying that ALL women experience these things. I don't think it is a genetic issue, but rather a cultural and environmental. Genetic engineering won't breed these issues out of men.

How to fix this, in an ethical manner?

Using a personal example, my kid sister (10 years younger) was being told all she could be when she grew up was a housewife.

During open house at school, she has told our mom that she was having problems with her math class, and asked her to talk to the teacher. My mom didn't want to go to open house because it conflicted with her Bunko night. I went to school in her place. After meeting her calculus teacher for less then a minute, I immediately spotted the problem.

The teacher was extremely aggressive in class, towards boys as well as girls. The kind of "Stand and Deliver" type, if you have ever seen the film you know the type. I explained had asked him to not raise his voice when he is asking questions, to not get in students faces, because they are having getting intimidated and afraid to ask questions when he does that. By not asking questions, they get lost in the dicussions, and then what he is teaching them is lost. He immediately got in my face and started shouting "You mean like this?" Other parents present immediatley flinched. I stood by ground. "Compared to my college professor, you are a pussy cat." That seemed to impress him. We talked, and my sister was shocked. What did you say to him? The class is entirely different. After 3 more months, she worked herself up from a C to an A.

Later that same year, I got permission from my job to bring my sister to the "Bring your kid to work day" (specifically because she was my sister, not my child, and I wanted her to experience it). I introduced her to the VP of Graphic Design. The Executive Assistant to the CEO (more clout then most VPs). The manager of HR. Several programmers. All of them women. I wanted my sister to realize she didn't have to be a housewife and the sky was the limit.

Flash forward 20 years. My sister is now in management at her company. She is doing really well. She still brings up the things I did for her when she was a child as the inspiration to where she is today.

Perpetuating stereotypes such as your post is only perpetuating the problem. Look at what the problem actually is. Solve that problem. Some quick fix involving genetic engineering, even if it was possible, will not fix the issue. Remember, abuse can go both ways, and you don't have to hit to hurt.

It wouldn't be a man if you did that. It would be " a wo-man "

No matter what you do I'm still a guy.



So yes it would be totally wrong to change a man or a woman for that matter.

[edit on 4/18/2008 by Solarskye]

reply to post by AWingAndASigh

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Women have suffered a lot over the years. Women have been forced to become maids and caretakers, even when they weren't so inclined. They've been discriminated against and forced out of the workplace, and prevented from doing jobs they're interested in because they're women.

That may have been true in the past, but it isn’t the case now. I am a woman. I am retired US Navy where I spent the majority of my enlistment as a mechanic. I have an A&P license that entitles me to work on aircraft. I used to do all of my own auto maintenance. I have never let the term “woman” hold me back from doing anything I wanted to do.

Women have been beaten and abused by the men in their lives - fathers, brothers, husbands and sons. Women have been raped and killed, both by men they know, and by maurading strangers.

I am a student of Aikido. I also own firearms and know how to use them accurately. I have suffered abuse from men in the past, but I determined to take my protection into my own hands. All women should learn and practice self-defense.

Women have put up with a LOT to ensure the survival of the species.

So have men.

Now that medical technology has advanced to the point that genetically engineered children are possible, would it be ethical to create men who aren't dominant and abusive?

Testosterone makes men aggressive. Environment makes them dominate and abusive.

What would be the effects of this on society?

Genetic engineering is a touchy subject. Who determines what qualities are removed or enhanced? This is a slippery slope that could open the door to a living nightmare. Will we engineer a new class system? Who gets to be the CEOs and who get to be the person who dumps the trash can into the back of the truck?

Why not just learn to live in this world the way it is utilizing the resources we already have?

I am one of those men that isn't dominant, while I may be military i'm still a pussy-cat.

Evolution it seems is producing more men like me, perhaps it's the chem-trails...hmmm....

I'll say no, it's not.
As long a men are allowed to genetically engineer firm, little, subservient sex toys as well.

Would it be wrong to engineer women without vocal chords? I think you found your answer.

So, I was looking at your reasons for wanting to do this...

...and it seems to m e that you believe that '2 wrongs equals a right'

Men only dominate in societies that have been patriarchies for long periods of time--plenty of cultures in Africa and South America have equal distributions of dominant and submissive types among the sexes, or even predominantly submissive men. Heck, even Western civilization is starting to approach that point--I mean, there are always gonna be a few minor physiological differences, but why muck around with our genes when we've got about a century left to enjoy them?

Men are already being programmed to be less dominant.

You can't manipulate a society full of alpha males. They will lead by example and prevent weakness from taking hold.

In this society, the weak, corrupt, and evil are hand-picked to seem like the alpha male. This is why the President of the U.S. is not a Chieftan, but a joke...

Modern men are also dealing with manipulation of testosterone levels. Alot of us either drink, smoke, or eat badly, or all of the above. We also get terrible sleep patterns, do not experience the gut-wrenching exercise of hunting and climbing etc. Our testosterone levels are through the floor and meanwhile, the media and the world around us is constantly trying to make you feel like less of a man.

Likewise, the female is encouraged to be restless, independent to a fault, and generally the opposite of what a male is capable of handling.

Whereas most societies encourage men to be strong leaders and women to be supportive, our society wants to take away the strong men who might protect the women, degrade both of them, and use them. If you look closely, you will see this everywhere.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by NewWorldOver]

dbl post.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by NewWorldOver]

Well, I eat right (if a bit too much), sleep well, and I've never touched anything more potent than ritalin--maybe that explains why I'm so overbearing. :p

If you want a lesbian lover just admit it to yourself and stop considering the effeminisation of your offspring for some crazy ideal of a recipricol agreement, which you will not be able to take advantage of anyway.

Unless of course you are into being an old woman, dominating effeminate young boys.