Op-Ed in New York Times suggests men are irrelevant to both reproduction and parenting.

buylocal745 · 2012-08-25T23:14:46+00:00

Homo, reflects an 18th-century masculine bias in science.

What? No it doesn't. It reflects how language works. Also, what if it did? Has it really progressed so far that people are finding offense in the Latin language?

an uninterrupted, intimate and essential maternal connection defines our species.

Except for, you know, all the times that it hasn't fully defined our species.

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

Nope. We can create sperm and eggs from stem cells, and it's only a matter of time before we create the artificial womb, rendering everyone obsolete. And, last time I checked, the only people who have gotten pregnant without the requisite 50 percent genetic material that a man provides are a few women from the Bronze age who's only mentions are in a few religious texts.

After the two of you left Grandma’s womb, you enjoyed the protection of your mother’s prepubescent ovary.

No. I didn't. In fact 'I' probably didn't exist as a concept until I was about three, because 'I' am only distinguished by my lived and remembered experiences. Not only that, but even the most religious people only state that it's a full person at conception. Yours is a stance the Westboro Baptist Church would shy from.

just an infinitesimally small packet of DNA, less than one-millionth of your mass.

Also known as half the DNA required for a child to be born. What don't you get?

you stole minerals from your mother’s bones and oxygen from her blood

Fetuses are thieves! Off with their hands, says I!

comes out to less than one pound of male contribution since the beginning of Homo sapiens 107 billion babies ago.

What? You mean men didn't contribute to the success of the fetus? Pack it up hunters and providers and every man with a kid until the 1960's. We don't count as support!

just as your father might have done;

Nice attempt. We see through the bullshit.

I don’t dismiss the years I put in as a doting father

Buuuuuuuut I'm about to do the just that, because I'm a giant mangina who has no self respect.

But that is a far cry from “necessary and sufficient” for reproduction.

What? 50 percent of DNA isn't necessary? What does 'sufficient' even mean?

If the women disappear, it’s extinction.

The one sound point and paragraph so far, alright.

But women have been a majority of college graduates since the 1980s, and their numbers are growing.

Why is that? Is it because women are smarter on average? Or what? Because men have a higher number of geniuses than women do.... As well as more failures. I love how you just say this and reeeeefffuuuuuseeee to examine why the fuck this is? You're supposed to be for equality! Unless, of course, it benefits men.

Meanwhile women live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense.

Yet again: Who's fault? I will concede that, perhaps, men are more violent than women. However, can you really state that men naturally die younger when they make up most violent crime, suicide rates, disease rates and others but don't get a single handout?

And, of course, women are angels who never hurt anyone, like ever? Despite the fact that they compose most molesters of children - people who then continue that cycle of abuse? Oh, fuck off.

In doing so, he unwittingly demonstrated that the female component of sexual reproduction, the egg cell, cannot be manufactured, but the male can.

So, you don't know how science works. This is just like the 'God of the gaps' purported by fundamentalist Christians. WE DON'T KNOW NOW, SO WE'LL NEVER KNOW, EVER! Or, maybe you don't want to know - because it will work against your female superiority narrative.

Tl;DR: A mangina with self esteem problem says that it's okay to commit genocide of men because they're just awful and women are way more important and like, they never bully anyone! No foolin'! Men suuuckkkk!

Honestly, Mr. Hapikan, I have a message from every man and woman in the world who hasn't bended down to their feminist overlords: FUUUUUUUUUCCCCCK YOOOOOOOOOOUUUUU

builtbro · 2012-08-25T22:30:47+00:00

Greg Hampikian is a professor of biology and criminal justice at Boise State University and the director of the Idaho Innocence Project.

this came from someone working for the innocence project. Someone so sexist should resign be forced to resign.

http://innocenceproject.boisestate.edu/who-we-are/

SteelCrossx · 2012-08-26T00:01:46+00:00

I honestly wish men could simply disappear for a year. One whole year without a single man on the entire planet. I'd be interested to see the state of things after that.

To be fair, I think it would be chaos if women disappeared for a year as well.

Dranosh · 2012-08-26T00:39:22+00:00

For a biology professor he is really fucking stupid.

Im really getting sick and tired of all the bullshit intellectuals spouting off misandric nonesense

ignatiusloyola · 2012-08-26T01:23:48+00:00

This article was first posted here: [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/yt75d/i_hope_this_is_tongueincheek_but_i_suspect_its_not/

A bigger discussion is going on here: [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ytdk8/men_who_needs_them_nytimescom/

We have 4 instances of this same article being posted. I would like to keep the discussion to the original post, but I don't want to lose all of the discussion going on in the second, so I will keep both up.

Title	Op-Ed in New York Times suggests men are irrelevant to both reproduction and parenting.
Author	JarrusMarker
Upvotes	10
Comments	7
Date	August 25, 2012 10:20 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ytqcu/oped_in_new_york_times_suggests_men_are/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/op-ed-in-new-york-times-suggests-men-are.1015006 https://theredarchive.com/post/1015006

Comments