Men, Who Needs Them? - NYTimes.com

bashar_al_assad · 2012-08-25T19:45:11+00:00

"If a woman wants to have a baby without a man, she just needs to secure sperm"

Brilliant!

TracyMorganFreeman · 2012-08-25T20:28:44+00:00

MAMMALS are named after their defining characteristic, the glands capable of sustaining a life for years after birth

Actually, mammary glands aren't the only defining characteristic. The neocortex is as well. Incidentally, the male one in humans has 20% more neurons.

glands that are functional only in the female

That is a consequence of hormones, not genes. Rather essentialist of this "progressive" person.

It’s increasingly clear that “mankind” itself is a gross misnomer

Or you have a complete misunderstanding of the etymology of the word.

Fortunately, the data for children raised by only females is encouraging. As the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan has shown, poverty is what hurts children, not the number or gender of parents.

And both more and a greater portion of single mothers are in poverty than single fathers.

They can be at work, at home, in prison or at war, living or dead.

And you call this "encouraging".

Your life as an egg actually started in your mother’s developing ovary, before she was born; you were wrapped in your mother’s fetal body as it developed within your grandmother.

Assuming we started out as eggs and didn't become distinct beings until after fertilization? Sounds like a female bias and a gross misunderstanding of biology.

Over the next nine months, you stole minerals from your mother’s bones and oxygen from her blood, and you received all your nutrition, energy and immune protection from her

Because financial support is taken for granted, despite it often being provided by the man either directly or via the state.

In contrast, 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.

And yet without any of that, those babies wouldn't have mattered. I guess if we took out all the keystones in the arches of the Colosseum and aquaducts during construction they could stand on their own just fine, right?

If a woman wants to have a baby without a man, she just needs to secure sperm (fresh or frozen) from a donor (living or dead)

Newsflash: That sperm came from a man.

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

More "encouragement".

Meanwhile women live longer, are healthier

It probably has nothing to do with not working themselves to an early grave supporting women while not receiving the same degree of healthcare.

and are far less likely to commit a violent offense

Depends on the offense. It doesn't really matter since people are much more likely to look the other way. Also women are far less likely to be a victim of violence.

If men were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?

Speaking of "cost benefit" analysis, this analogy is flawed because each car is not the same "price". Far more goes into the "better car", and for little gain. If you're spending 2-10 times as much on healthcare for women for an extra 10% lifespan while also not being as productive in terms of the workforce, maybe you don't understand what cost benefit analysis is.

So sure, have your overpriced car that you spend more on maintenance but you don't drive as often, and then tell me about "cost benefit analysis".

Mr. Venter started with a fully functional cell, then swapped out its DNA. In doing so, he unwittingly demonstrated that the female component of sexual reproduction, the egg cell, cannot be manufactured, but the male can.

Source please. I doubt he was trying to reconstruct an egg and failed, nor does it demonstrate the male gamete can be reconstructed. All it shows is that the consequences of fertilization can be artificially created.

What a failure of biology and critical thinking this article is. The fact he's a professor of biology I almost find offensive.

Jacksambuck · 2012-08-25T20:58:28+00:00

[...]fathers can be absent. They can be at work, at home, in prison or at war, living or dead.

And this is how much society cares about men.

You glided along the oviduct, surviving happily on the stored nutrients and genetic messages that Mom packed for you.

Yes, thank you mom, for, having a womb.

Over the next nine months, you stole minerals from your mother’s bones and oxygen from her blood, and you received all your nutrition, energy and immune protection from her.

Stole. Original sin, now in biological form. Original praise, now in bodily functions form.

Ultimately the question is, does “mankind” really need men? With human cloning technology just around the corner and enough frozen sperm in the world to already populate many generations, perhaps we should perform a cost-benefit analysis.

The nazis never contemplated wiping out half of humanity for financial reasons. And this is the NY times.

I feel strangely humorless. Don't ask me to condemn any misogyny or anger any time soon.

A few choice comments :

This essay is bound to bring out the wolves, but I applaud Professor Hampikian for getting to the heart of the matter. Thank you, Prof Hampikian, for reminding me of why it's an amazing time to be a woman.

Not being considered for gendercide feels great, I'm sure.

What about gay men like me? I suppose if women wish to do away with us, that is their prerogative.(my bold) I suppose they could just try to at least make all future males homosexual and let us keep to ourselves...

Look at that evil man, begging for his life. "Why do I need to die ? My life has value to me, even if it doesn't to you." Women have every right to kill him if they so desire, but somehow he still thinks he's human. His misguided will to survive has no place in a truly equal society.

I saved a mensch, for last :

My husband, my father, my brother, my son, my dear friends, my favorite writers ; without them my life would be joyless. These men are not my enemies, my adversaries, my oppressors. They are advocates for me and for the other women in their lives. They are utterly indispensable.

DaNiceguy · 2012-08-25T19:19:51+00:00

That this blatantly man-bashing, hateful drivel is published by a supposedly reputable newspaper is incredible. That the author is apparently a male is worse. Regardless, the message is clear - men, you are not merely disposable, you are human garbage with no inherent value as a human being. You are "entertaining" and that is all. If this article were written about blacks, asking if they were "necessary" there would be riots in streets, but since it's about men, it's perfectly fine.

notheanix · 2012-08-25T19:47:40+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/

southernasshole · 2012-08-25T20:18:10+00:00

Atleast not all the comments are borderline hitler justification style evil

If men outperform women, it's because women are discriminated against. If women outperform men, it's because "women are wonderful." Got it? Good.

You see, men actually aren't better at anything. The only innate differences between men and women favor women, aside from (this author concedes) a bit of extra muscle mass for me.

Women receive credit for being less violent, living longer, and being less susceptible to disease. They also receive credit for being more likely to complete college. But interestingly, any area where men outperform women is immediately chalked up to discrimination.

Men are more likely to create a innovative software company? Women are discriminated against! Men are more likely to commit a crime? Women are wonderful! Men are more likely to discover a vaccine or invent a new life saving surgical technique? Women are discriminated against. Women are more likely to complete college? Women are wonderful!

I will commend the author on how well he has tied the hands of anyone who would like to defend men in this argument. After all, women are wonderful and have certainly been discriminated against, nothing wrong with pointing that out. And as we've seen from the Larry Summers episode, even hinting that maybe, just tiny bit, if you will, that men might sort of kind on the outer margins be a tiny bit more inclined to do something good... well, that costs you your job and gets you uninvited to graduation speeches years later.

typhonblue · 2012-08-25T21:28:43+00:00

I know the author of this claptrap only mentioned this tangenitally, but can I just say, for the record, that this whole "lesbians make better parents" is bullshit?

Well, okay, it might be true, but the data gathered in the study that determined that is bullshit. They compared basically all heterosexual couples with kids, to all lesbian couples with kids.

Couple of things to consider: 1. There's obviously more straight people with kids. The bigger the sample size, the more likely some of your samples are going to be screwed up individuals.

and 2 (and more importantly, IMHO) When lesbians decide to have kids, unless one of them decides to get a donor the "old fashioned way" they can only do so through advanced medical technology. expensive medical technology. Therefore, lesbian couples who have kids are more likely than not to be able to afford said proceedures. Which means they tend to be a bit on the affluent side.

Something which is not neccessarily as true for their heterosexual counterparts.

buylocal745 · 2012-08-25T23:15:26+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

WhiteThrone · 2012-08-25T22:37:36+00:00

From the second paragraph in the article ...

"That bias, however, is becoming harder to sustain, as men become less relevant to both reproduction and parenting."

Men, the article says, are becoming irrelevant in parenting. Given the increased likelihood for truancy, gang activity, criminality, sexual and physical abuse, suicide, and drug addiction among children of single mothers, I hardly say that men's role in parenting is irrelevant.

On the contrary, a father's presence in a child's life reduces all of the aforementioned childhood problems and increases the likelihood of his boy's graduating from high school, attending college and generally growing into a happy, healthy, mature adult human.

bikemaul · 2012-08-25T19:23:38+00:00

What is this crap?

Lasthcompany · 2012-08-25T19:41:54+00:00

[permanently deleted]

southernasshole · 2012-08-25T20:21:42+00:00

It's interesting to note how these types of people take no issue in generalizing all of human suffering as a result of maleness, but you take that same generalizing view of all the good that has been done for humanity, and saying its thanks to mostly maleness makes you a bigot.

I swear sometimes if I had to deal with someone like this in person I would become violent....

SlimThugga · 2012-08-25T20:33:22+00:00

He talks about mammals and tries to throw some evolutionary biology in there about how men are irrelevant to reproduction, conveniently missing out a key fact. AI and IVF involves sperm and they are scientific procedures. I hear making sperm from stem cells is possible, but again, still a scientific procedure.

What I mean to say is that, purely biologically speaking, men are necessary for reproduction. The author is either oblivious to that, or is smugly and zealously taking the above mentioned interventions for granted, or maybe he really does know a method via which women can abracadabra themselves into producing sperm and fertilizing their own eggs with it, with no outside intervention. I'd like to know about it.

So much self loathing. This guy should just put himself out of his misery already.

PierceHarlan · 2012-08-25T21:21:26+00:00

He's an idiot. Nuff said.

southernasshole · 2012-08-25T20:15:22+00:00

My goodness! I cannot believe how many of these comments are defensive, hostile, or both.

The author wasn't suggesting putting men in concentration camps; he was applying well-reasoned biological facts to a larger social question. Put the torches and pitchforks down folks, or at least ask yourselves why you feel so threatened in the first place.

It does not surprise me the author of this comment has a feminine name.

So it goes like this, disregard the value of males as human beings, whose value amounts to being playthings, and then act surprised when it hits a nerve.

NO FUCKING DUH THE COMMENTS ARE DEFENSIVE THE ARTICLE ONLY FUCKING QUESTIONED THEIR BASIC BIOLOGICAL WORTH AS HUMAN MOTHERFUCKING BEINGS YOU MISERABLE FUCKING CUNT!

Liberhat · 2012-08-25T21:52:59+00:00

Neil Armstrong has sadly passed away. The first human to set foot on the moon was apparently (using the logic of this NYTimes screed) an unworthy, second-class version of humanity. So remember that when you think of misandry and how utterly illogical it is - even one of the great pioneers of human history can be dismissed as an inferior being simply on account of his sex.

Misandry is the default setting in the mainstream media, and is only getting more vocal.

betaprime · 2012-08-25T21:41:32+00:00

I would have thought that a tenured geneticist would know about the implications of higher variance.

I don't know what a phd in genetics from uconn in the 80s and 90s is worth. Nor do I know what the departmental ranking of boise state is (never heard of it until today). Does not inspire confidence in this man's competence on genetics, let alone all the other topics his piece touches on that are far outside his narrow domain of supposed expertise.

MultipleMatrix · 2012-08-26T00:21:50+00:00

[permanently deleted]

ThePigman · 2012-08-26T03:14:56+00:00

I guess we can throw this clown in with PZ Myers when it comes to un-academic academics.

If he had written this in an impersonal, academic way i might have taken it seriously. As it is he uses language meant to get a rise out of us, and he does it from the very beginning with the title.

Take this quote...

"Your life as an egg actually started in your mother’s developing ovary,"

This makes me wonder how someone this stupid got a job at a university - "you" do not have a "life as an egg". "You" are not "you" till the sperm joins the egg, and to argue otherwise is to also claim that "you" had a life as a sperm!

I wonder if the men he works with at the Innocence Project know he holds them in such contempt? I also have to wonder if this obvious bias against men leads him - consciously or unconsciously - to do less than he can to get these men exonerated.

As for men's coming reproductive obsolescence, it is still a few decades away. Until then the only intellectually honest response to the question posed by his title is "Women."

Ted8367 · 2012-08-25T21:16:09+00:00

Can men please just go on strike now? It doesn't have to be for long, just like a year or so. I just wish every man in this country could just stop doing what he does, and let the women do it.

All these strong independent women are just champing at the bit for the ability to "make things right" I say we let them.

Just, you know, make sure you get emergency supplies together first.

ManUpManDown · 2012-08-26T02:09:05+00:00

Thought I would post this comment from a woman named Maire:

"This piece may have been written in order to provoke, but I'm going to comment anyway. I wish everyone could stop pitting the sexes against each other and making comments about women's superiority over men or vice a versa. If a piece were written extolling the virtues of men and dismissing the necessity or sufficiency of women there would be blood. Man-bashing is reprehensible. The merest suggestion that men are not necessary when it comes to rearing children is ridiculous. Even if it is technically possible to reproduce without a real life flesh and blood male having been involved at any stage in the process, the attempt to argue that men are not necessary in any way in a child's life is sad, unbalanced and unfair. There are lots of women in the world who are not maternal, there are those who do not breastfeed their children, and who do not possess many of the characteristics described in this sexist, one-sided article. There are, thankfully, a lot of men who are not just paternal but who possess, for want of a better word, maternal qualities and who look after, love and care for their children as well if not better than any woman could. I have seen it with my own eyes on more than one occasion and it has always moved me very deeply. I have great respect for men and for their often great abilities to love and care for children, the suggestion that they are not necessary is deeply offensive. Three thousand cheers for all the wonderful fathers out there please!"

southernasshole · 2012-08-26T04:38:33+00:00

This article is more than misguided, sexist, or bigoted, its downright evil.

2012-08-26T09:32:04+00:00

very poorly-researched drivel. I've seen more accurate stuff spouted off by fail trolls who have no idea how reproduction occurs.

primaloath · 2012-08-25T21:28:57+00:00

I would normally ignore such a piece simply because of how fallacious it is.

And yet while the term “mammal” is based on an objective analysis of shared traits, the genus name for human beings, Homo, reflects an 18th-century masculine bias in science.

"Homo" means "human", "person" and is gender neutral.

Liberhat · 2012-08-25T22:02:13+00:00

Does this man have sons? It would be interesting to know if he thinks they are as worthless as every other man/boy...

irishsnowday · 2012-08-25T23:17:37+00:00

Its worth noting that either gender could become 'biologically obsolete' if people pour billions of dollars into researching such.

But personally, I believe that such a suggestion is a prime example of how sexist and chauvinistic much of modern feminism really is. Its an example at how much of feminism is not fighting for equal gender rights.

I see no difference between this article and eugenics.

Manatee7474 · 2012-08-26T00:11:21+00:00

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, regarding all the amazing technology, materials and procedures needed for IVF etc, you know all the stuff needed to make men 'obsolete'; were they not conceived, designed, invented, developed and manufactured by men? How can he possibly question the value of men? It's like sitting high up on the branch of a tree and saying, this limb supports me and stops me from falling so I'll just use this saw to disconnect myself from that useless hunk of wood called the tree trunk. I thought this sort of thing only happened in the 'Three Stooges'? (Comic geniuses and, strangely enough, men...)

ignatiusloyola · 2012-08-26T01:27:23+00:00

This is #2 of 4 instances of this exact article being submitted. The most recent two have been removed (very little discussion took place), and the original posting and this one remain.

Hopefully we won't get more duplicates.

Carry on.

rottingchrist · 2012-08-26T03:42:42+00:00

GREG HAMPIKIAN

Talking of men not being needed, we can certainly do without this guy.

SwanOfAvon22 · 2012-08-26T05:39:10+00:00

Meanwhile women live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense. If men were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?

What an unbelievably stupid analogy to cap off an unbelievably stupid article.

mbarkhau · 2012-08-26T08:25:02+00:00

It’s increasingly clear that “mankind” itself is a gross misnomer: an uninterrupted, intimate and essential maternal connection defines our species.

That's funny, because when I look around and see what I think defines our species (you know, civilization...), it seems like it is mostly built by men.

spookytj · 2012-08-26T08:32:00+00:00

Fine, you are right, who needs men...now stop using anything and everything ever produced by a man, and use only the technology created by women, and then you get back to me.

2012-08-25T21:16:24+00:00

It's funny how people think men have a small role in reproduction, yet without men, reproduction couldn't even take place. I never had any respect for NY Times anyway, but this didn't help them much.

he_cried_out_WTF · 2012-08-25T23:14:20+00:00

the genus name for human beings, Homo, reflects an 18th-century masculine bias in science.

erm...isn't the genus for humans "sapiens"?

wastedtime3698 · 2012-08-25T23:20:13+00:00

this seems like just another article of a man appeasing and entertainingg women by putting down men and giving them another reason to pat themselves on the back

ay_ch · 2012-08-26T01:23:55+00:00

I wasn't upset by this article, I was more amused and confused by it. There were two questions I thought of immediately.

What's the point in writing such an article? It isn't an original opinion. It involves a few sloppy stretches of scientific thinking (if functioning mammary glands are the defining characteristics of being a mammal, does that mean that male humans aren't mammals?) and sloppy historical thinking. (He's arguing in the beginning that 'Homo', which is perfectly acceptable to use in a gender-neutral sense, is a biased term. Which it is not. Does he want to argue that Darwin's "Descent of Man" has a masculine-biased title? Was Darwin only thinking of male human beings?) Perhaps an article of this kind might get a chuckle and a head-pat from (certain) types of women and self-loathing men, but that's pretty thin gruel. What's the point?
Would it not be possible to make a similar argument about the uselessness of infertile women?

In the author's mind, the only thing that made men 'necessary' was their ability to provide money for women. And, ha ha, women don't need men for that (but single mothers are hurt by poverty, he says, so women don't need men as providers but women still need to be provided-for in the absence of men.) Since, in the main, men are no longer 'needed', it's safe to throw men overboard. His core argument (and it is hardly an original insight here) is that women ARE needed for childbirth and child-rearing, and men are not, so men can get the axe. (I guess it's not sexist to stick women with diaper changing after all. Biology is destiny. According to this author, at least.)

So if childbirth is the key criteria that elevates a woman's worth, of what use are women who cannot have babies? They are about as useless as men, are they not? So if men cannot justify their existence because they are not 'needed' in childbirth, how can infertile women justify their own existence? Also, what of women who don't want to have babies? Are they choosing to be as useless as men?

C0CKPUNCHER · 2012-08-26T06:19:05+00:00

The male sperm has more mutation than the female egg. The male sperm is 'selected' from millions. It clearly has some function in inheritance.

The mother doesn't 'make' the baby, the baby makes itself, the mother is essentially a tarpaulin over the construction.

As such reproduction without men is one were evolution and incentive mean very little.

More practically bastards statistically have much less success than children of two parents. We should believe numbers before stories.

ConfirmedCynic · 2012-08-26T09:48:30+00:00

The mere fact that the writer of this piece of trash would ask such a question demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of all the contributions men have made since humanity left the caves. They only built all of civilization, you know.

Nor is there any acknowledgement of how choices of single mothers are subsidized by the state. Maybe she's chucked Dad out of the lives of her children, abetted by the legal system, but somewhere some man is working and paying taxes toward the services she is using.

J9AC9K · 2012-08-26T11:53:21+00:00

This article is extremely sexist, not just towards men but also towards women since its entire premise is that one's ability to reproduce is what gives your life value.

"Sterile men and women. Who needs them?"

"Homosexuals and transgenders. Who needs them?"

"The mentally disabled. Who needs them?"

builtbro · 2012-08-25T20:28:47+00:00

Don't sweat it. Soon this "modern society" will be engulfed in violence as always happened to human civilization. And once it does men will again be on the forefront of survival and women will be hiding in our shadows to survive.

2012-08-26T01:06:02+00:00

Aaaaaaand the New York Times just lost me as a reader. I can't take them seriously after this blatant hackery and hatred.

waffebunny · 2012-08-26T01:07:56+00:00

"With expanding reproductive choices, we can expect to see more women choose to reproduce without men entirely."

It is currently quite impossible (unless, of course, there has been some sort of tremendous explosion in human cloning techniques or other non-sexual means of reproduction of which I am currently unaware) for a woman to reproduce without the involvement of a man in some form of spermatozoan capacity. One would think a professor of biology would be aware of this.

Lecks · 2012-08-26T00:02:54+00:00

Ugh, this tripe reminds me of a rant my uncle went on some time ago. It baffles me how self-loathing some people can be, to the point where they project it on an entire group.

mrcap · 2012-08-26T01:09:22+00:00

What is the point of this opinion piece, it seems to just be pure male bashing? I still can't believe this crap gets published by NYTimes.

calonord · 2012-08-26T01:21:53+00:00

can you imagine if they did an article like this for a racial group? lol

Vordreller · 2012-08-26T02:17:55+00:00

Think about your own history. Your life as an egg actually started in your mother’s developing ovary, before she was born; you were wrapped in your mother’s fetal body as it developed within your grandmother.

That, scientifically, is not true. There can be no talk of "life as an egg". There is no life for eggs. There isn't even an organism. What there is, is a group of cells on their own.

Popular media uses terms like "waiting to be formed" and people then assume that there's an active conscious part to it. Because only conscious, living, things "wait" for something. This is simply bad grammar. People don't stop to question it and so they assume that there's life to it. There isn't.

Giving a primordial egg cell the property of life has no basis in reality. It is pure fantasy. The sort you find in teenage girls who can't let go of the idea that they're Disney princesses.

The author uses terms like:

enjoyed the protection

As if this isn't something you can take for granted, but that must a service which must be payed for.

The argument that we(men and women) "owe" our existence to anyone is a fallacious argument. We are not property and our coming in to existence isn't something that should have to be payed for in any sort of service.

If the women disappear, it’s extinction.

Not true at all. For years now, research has been going on in to artificial wombs.

Here's a few links:

Ultimately the question is, does “mankind” really need men?

That is a loaded question. I quote wikipedia:

Aside from being a logical fallacy, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda

The question isn't relevant. The question that should be asked is: do you want men? Because that's what this is really all about. Women not knowing how to deal with men and rather getting rid of them than actually finding out.

It’s also true that men have, on average, a bit more muscle mass than women. But in the age of ubiquitous weapons, the one with the better firepower (and knowledge of the law) triumphs.

This is what's called "grasping at straws". The author is creating an excuse for the simple purpose of having one. Dog, beating, stick and all that.

When I explained this to a female colleague and asked her if she thought that there was yet anything irreplaceable about men

Another loaded question. Trying to suggest that just because something can be replaced, it therefor should be replaced.

Like I wrote before: this isn't about need, it's about want.

If this author has proven anything, it's that courses in ethics and humanity should be part of every single scientific curriculum. This man views everyone as objects, to be replaced the instant they're not needed anymore.

rodvanmechelen · 2012-08-26T05:27:30+00:00

In her book, In A Different Voice, Carol Gilligan argues that women evolved an "ethic of caring" in the context of the extended family, while men evolved an "ethic of rights" in the context of civilization. Both are necessary and fundamental to modern human existence.

As for reproduction, nanotechnology has the potential to make gender irrelevant. In 2002, Maria Shriver showcased artificial womb technology and hailed it as a potential boon for women who might want to have children without going through pregnancy, or who might want to put off having children until they were too old to become pregnant. I responded by pointing out that eventually we will be able to create artificial eggs, and then we won't need women to reproduce. In a chapter on cloning that I referenced in the comment (it took the early form of a blog post), I explained why women and men need one another: http://www.backlash.com/book/clones.html

BrSy · 2012-08-26T06:41:52+00:00

So much for universal human rights, eh.

2012-08-26T17:19:54+00:00

What is this horrifying genocidal nonsense doing on NYT?

mrcap · 2012-08-25T21:10:42+00:00

And this is why I thoroughly, utterly, completely loathe, loathe, loathe women. Written by a man it may be, this article speaks to women, and is all about women. The future may belong to women, but my heart and mind are my own. And I fucking loathe women.

All women. And you feminists are welcome to quote me on that.

thrway_1000 · 2012-08-25T19:41:25+00:00

This was already posted here.

Title	Men, Who Needs Them? - NYTimes.com
Author	mhide
Upvotes	112
Comments	134
Date	August 25, 2012 6:41 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ytdk8/men_who_needs_them_nytimescom/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/men-who-needs-them-nytimescom.1015021 https://theredarchive.com/post/1015021

Comments