Men are Parasites on Women

Its been quite a while since I posted something. I had started my second year at University and I’m finding less and less spare time. This is going to be a quick post of what I posted to my University blog.

Recently while I was in a lecture in Human Genetics, I heard this thing uttered by a lady who lectures on Human Genetics. I was rather surprised by such a thing coming from such a position. So I posted this to my other blog:

For the comprehension-impaired, this is a little rant on a statement made during a Human Genetics lecture by [name with held]. My female colleagues are understandably finding my impatience quite amusing. But I, being a man, could not take that statement lightly. Here is the context:

The lecturer stated how all of one’s mitochondrial DNA is inherted from his/her mother and in so doing, threw out a little dig. Since the sperm does not contribute to the mt-DNA, it was suggested that, this kinda lends some support to the idea that men are merely parasitic on women.

I don’t know about you, but apart from being gobsmacked by the irrationality of such a supposition, it was strangely amusing to consider the implications. I guess this is one of those ideas where the vagueness of it keeps you in the dark about how exactly the proposition “men are parasites on women” follows or is related (however tangential it may be) to the fact that the mt-DNA of every single human has maternal origins.

The sperm is anthropomorphized. Poor little thing. The word “parasite” suggests that, the sperm is in someway harmful [to women]. I have no idea how this could be supported. But everything I know suggests otherwise. After all, the sperm is required to fertilise the egg cell to produce an embryo. Furthermore, “parasite” suggests that sperm has nothing of value to contribute to the whole shebang. It strikes me as a rather naive thing to say.

That’s all. End of Rant.

I was trying to understand where she was coming from. I’m still puzzled by her very short comment. It was neither explained nor justified. Just an offhand remark.

The converse of this happened today on a lecture in Human Genetics, only this time it was from a guy. He was discussing Human Pedigree Analysis and in explaining women as “carriers” for certain X-linked traits, he indicated that women have something “hidden” and guys are more “open and honest”. One could hear the murmurs of women all over the lecture theatre the moment he uttered it! I must hasten to add that his tone was very light-hearted and he was smiling as he said it. Everyone could see he was joking around. And atleast everyone had a vague idea how this comment is related to the Human Carriers, unlike the previous “parasite” comment from the other lecturer.

Inspiring Teachers

At ScienceBlogs, a teacher blogs about why it is dangerous to teach evolution in wherever he works in America. This guy who goes by the handle Coturnix opines:

You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. If a student, like [Natalie Wright] who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time.

First question, what is truth here? Or is it Truth (capital T). Most likely it’s the latter since the guy denies NOMA. Second, why teach your Truth: your spin interpretation of the scientific data and concepts as the truth in a public school/college? Whatever happened to the noble ideal of secularism.

As a student, I say if ever I knew that my biology teacher was using NOMA to gain my trust, only to teach his version of the “truth”, I’d be mad. Thank God, my A-level (and high school) Biology teachers were not like that. If they were, it will only have served to destroy the respect I have for whatever truth the teacher represents.

I do not understand why it is necessary to use some ‘inaccuracies’ about evolution in order to “reach” the students (is it some kind of evangelism?). I mean Coturnix is most definitely not teaching about evolution to little children; rather to teenagers and adults I guess. So why the need for ‘inaccuracies’? And by the way, the students are not gonna like you for teaching inaccuracies (or lies if knowingly done) if they find it out later on in their academic life.

Reading Coturnix’s article, initially I thought I found a positive thing to commend:

If there is a potential resentment of my lectures, I have to thread carefully. I have to remember that I am not trying to turn them into biologists, but that I am trying to make them think for themselves and to understand evolution even if they do not want to ‘believe’ it for religious reasons.

However, I found his intention very insincere in light of his other desires.

Now I will mention some of the things about my science teachers that inspired me and put me steadily on the path to becoming a scientist.