NYTimes: Men, Who Needs Them?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Goofy article.

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.

...or something like that.

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.

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...

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.

...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?"