HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » NYTimes: Men, Who Needs T...

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 10:09 AM

NYTimes: Men, Who Needs Them?

Actually a great article. Written by a guy. Some pretty good lines like:

"your father’s 3.3 picograms of DNA comes out to less than one pound of male contribution since the beginning of Homo sapiens 107 billion babies ago"

"When I explained this to a female colleague and asked her if she thought that there was yet anything irreplaceable about men, she answered, “They’re entertaining.”"

Entertaining or not, this doesn't look good. Oh well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html?ref=global-home

14 replies, 4534 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply NYTimes: Men, Who Needs Them? (Original post)
marginlized Aug 2012 OP
4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #1
Bonobo Aug 2012 #2
4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #3
MadrasT Aug 2012 #4
4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #5
MadrasT Aug 2012 #6
lumberjack_jeff Aug 2012 #9
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #7
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #8
ElboRuum Aug 2012 #11
4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #10
Major Nikon Aug 2012 #13
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #14
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #12

Response to marginlized (Original post)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 12:03 PM

1. Someone needs to retake biology 101

 

That’s good, since women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither.


Some species practice parthenogenesis. Humans are not one of them.


When I explained this to a female colleague and asked her if she thought that there was yet anything irreplaceable about men, she answered, “They’re entertaining.”


Would an article decrying the uselessness of the female species be as well received?

Keep saying fathers are worthless. Then keep acting shocked when so few men step up and act like fathers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #1)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 12:09 PM

2. Didn't you know that women can reproduce by budding? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #2)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 12:11 PM

3. Girl Power!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marginlized (Original post)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 12:21 PM

4. I can't begin to say how much I dislike this article.

It presumes the only purpose for existing is to bear children and if you don't you are literally worthless.

There are some pretty cool people around - both men and women - who will never bear a child.

So what if you can't (or just don't)? It does not devalue your very existence.

Yeah... I pretty much hate this article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #4)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 12:24 PM

5. That's another good point

 

it presupposes that reproduction is an individuals most valid (only valid really) contribution to the world.

At 7+ billion people I don't think reproduction is that great of a concern.

Actually women who wish to breed pose a unique threat to the world if you consider overpopulation to be a real problem (I do). Meaning that if you want to use that logic men and women who don't wish to breed are more valuable at the moment than women with healthy and eager wombs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #5)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 01:54 PM

6. Right there with you on that. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadrasT (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:40 AM

9. Yes. The optimum human being is Nadia Suleman.

 

But it's a useful splash of cold water onto the face of those of us who still think that men are atop some sort of hierarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marginlized (Original post)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 07:42 PM

7. Excuse me while i not give a shit.

Goofy article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marginlized (Original post)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 07:47 PM

8. It may one day be possible for us to replace all our food with tasteless little pills, or to

Transplant our brains into cold glass jars and live our lives without bodies or any sensory experience whatsoever.

So, obviously, that is what is going to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #8)

Wed Aug 29, 2012, 09:56 PM

11. The distance between CAN and SHOULD is measured in units of wisdom...

...or something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marginlized (Original post)

Wed Aug 29, 2012, 04:12 PM

10. I heard an interesting comment on this.

 

I'm paraphrasing but basically remove the word male and replace it with any other group (blacks, jews, homosexuals, etc) and see if it comes across as bigoted.


"When I explained this to a gentile colleague and asked her if she thought that there was yet anything irreplaceable about Jews, she answered, “They’re entertaining.”"

I wonder if that op-ed would make the NY times.

/additionally if we eliminate half the population (doesn't matter by what qualifier) civilization will collapse. Look what the black plague and a 1/4 reduction in population did to a far less advanced and complicated european society. So this world he envisions would not be able to support the infrastructure necessary for in vitro fertilization, or freezers or any of the rest of it. They'd have a hard enough time feeding themselves let alone keeping the lights on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #10)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 11:35 PM

13. There's no question that it's overt sexism even without comparing it to other groups

If you look up the definition for sexism, here's what you find...

sex·ism
noun
1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #13)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:10 PM

14. That's why some groups felt the need to redefine sexism

 

to include a power element.

Only those in charge can be sexist. And it's not based on immediate power structures, but rather on the vague concept of "The Patriarchy". So a female boss does not have power over her male employee. In fact he has all the power because of the patriarchy. So she cannot be sexist against him.

It's absurd of course but some people are always prone to these delusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marginlized (Original post)

Wed Aug 29, 2012, 10:06 PM

12. On occasion....

...I've heard the odd male half of a heterosexual couple suggest parthenogenesis to his mate (although not in those words) which brings me to the movie quote with the Biology teacher asking "Who it was that first suggested asexual reproduction?" and tentatively answered by the student "Your wife?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread