Post Reply
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Men, Who Needs Them?
2 years ago  ::  Aug 28, 2012 - 11:55AM #1
Paravani
Posts: 797

Men, Who Needs Them?



... Women aren’t just becoming men’s equals. It’s increasingly clear that “mankind” itself is a gross misnomer: an uninterrupted, intimate and essential maternal connection defines our species.


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


That’s good, since women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither. From the production of the first cell (egg) to the development of the fetus and the birth and breast-feeding of the child, fathers can be absent. They can be at work, at home, in prison or at war, living or dead.


... at some point, your father spent a few minutes close by, but then left. A little while later, you encountered some very odd tiny cells that he had shed. They did not merge with you, or give you any cell membranes or nutrients — just an infinitesimally small packet of DNA, less than one-millionth of your mass.


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. By the time you were born your mother had contributed six to eight pounds of your weight. Then as a parting gift, she swathed you in billions of bacteria from her birth canal and groin that continue to protect your skin, digestive system and general health. 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.


... I don’t dismiss the years I put in as a doting father, or my year at home as a house husband with two young kids. And I credit my own father as the more influential parent in my life. Fathers are of great benefit. But that is a far cry from “necessary and sufficient” for reproduction.


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.


It’s true that men have traditionally been the breadwinners. But women have been a majority of college graduates since the 1980s, and their numbers are growing. 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.


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?


... Recently, the geneticist J. Craig Venter showed that the entire genetic material of an organism can be synthesized by a machine and then put into what he called an “artificial cell.” This was actually a bit of press-release hyperbole: 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.


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.”


Gentlemen, let’s hope that’s enough.



As a (straight) woman, I have to disagree that sperm is men's most important contribution to humanity.  I find men fascinating, both endlessly absorbing and, at times, incredibly tedious (as when they're discussing sports or other ho-hum topics); enchanting, warm, sweet, spicy men; occasionally infuriating, sometimes brilliant, often irritatingly stupid about really obvious stuff...  Ah, men!

Life would be incredibly cold and boring without you guys, in my opinion.  And since I no longer possess the equipment to incubate life, it matters not one whit to me if your sperm is redundant.

That's my opinion, anyway.  Ladies, gentlemen:  what are yours?

Love,

Claudia

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 28, 2012 - 1:08PM #2
farragut
Posts: 4,042

Shoot, I've known for over half a century that the future is a woman's world where reproduction is served by induced parthenogenesis. Perhaps they'll keep a few males around as a diversion.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 28, 2012 - 1:18PM #3
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,894

Aug 28, 2012 -- 11:55AM, Paravani wrote:


As a (straight) woman, I have to disagree that sperm is men's most important contribution to humanity.  I find men fascinating, both endlessly absorbing and, at times, incredibly tedious (as when they're discussing sports or other ho-hum topics); enchanting, warm, sweet, spicy men; occasionally infuriating, sometimes brilliant, often irritatingly stupid about really obvious stuff...  Ah, men!

Life would be incredibly cold and boring without you guys, in my opinion.  And since I no longer possess the equipment to incubate life, it matters not one whit to me if your sperm is redundant.

That's my opinion, anyway.  Ladies, gentlemen:  what are yours?

Love,

Claudia





My opinion is that articles like the one you are commenting on tend to be written by self-hating men who have a bad case of life-performance anxiety that they assuage by fantasizing about not being needed. It's the same idea behind cuckoldry.


Everybody knows that the vast majority of women want to have men around (even if they aren't attracted to them), and for a load of reasons that authors like this one can't seem to fathom.


And what about the possibility of creating children outside of a uterus? Does this mean women would become obsolete? Hardly.


 


 

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 28, 2012 - 1:32PM #4
Paravani
Posts: 797

Aug 28, 2012 -- 1:18PM, MMarcoe wrote:

And what about the possibility of creating children outside of a uterus? Does this mean women would become obsolete? Hardly.



"Oh, brave new world, that has such people in it!"


Being pregnant was an experience, indeed; part astounding miracle, and part crude animal wallowing in the muck of biology.  I was both thrilled and appalled by the experience.


... And when my daughter was finally born, and outside of my body, she would not stop crying if she didn't have skin-to-skin contact with me.  So in a way, she wanted to stay "part of me"...  at least for the first couple of weeks...


...  Unless her dad was nearby to hold her.  Then both she and I could get some sleep, and I didn't have to worry about her.  Her dad could always calm her down.


Maybe he wasn't exactly "necessary" for procreation...  But he has certainly been necessary to ME all these years!


Love,


Claudia

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 28, 2012 - 1:34PM #5
arielg
Posts: 9,116

The (male) author of the following linked article believes that the most important contribution men make to the human race, sperm, is becoming redundant and unnecessary due to our advances in genetics and in-vitro fertilization technology.



This is such incredible bullshit, I feel stupid even trying to have a rational answer to the nonsense.  To begin with, the in-vitro fertilization technology was invented by men. The air conditioned room where  it happens were built by men, who also built the building, the bridges, the computers, machines, the airplanes and all the things that make it possible to have leasure time to indulge in  mental gymnastics of this sort. 


 Men and women are two sides of the same coin. One doesn't exist without the other.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 28, 2012 - 1:36PM #6
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

This article was apparently written by a self-loathing, massively insecure, completely meterosexual,  neutered male, who apparenlty has spent too much time around bitter, insecure, man-hating women.


I'm so glad to be married to a very real, secure, strong and intelligent woman, who can love and appreciate a man and a partner in parenting. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 28, 2012 - 2:02PM #7
Ebon
Posts: 10,148

Now, my understanding of genetics comes mainly from six months of neuropsychology and nerdcore rap but I'm pretty sure that even if we eventually master outright cloning (which, IIRC, is banned anyway), you still need a reasonable number of males around to maintain a functional gene pool. Also, if we're looking far enough ahead that we have that kind of technology, we're probably also looking at a time period when we have an artificial womb. I could also point out that it is necessary to have role models of both sexes for healthy psychological development.


This reminds me of the radfem lunatics who insist that straight penetrative sex is unnatural.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 28, 2012 - 2:09PM #8
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Aug 28, 2012 -- 2:02PM, Ebon wrote:


Now, my understanding of genetics comes mainly from six months of neuropsychology and nerdcore rap but I'm pretty sure that even if we eventually master outright cloning (which, IIRC, is banned anyway), you still need a reasonable number of males around to maintain a functional gene pool. Also, if we're looking far enough ahead that we have that kind of technology, we're probably also looking at a time period when we have an artificial womb. I could also point out that it is necessary to have role models of both sexes for healthy psychological development.


This reminds me of the radfem lunatics who insist that straight penetrative sex is unnatural.




Or, perhaps we'll eventually evolve and invent our way out of needing the sexes, or sex, at all.


We'll just be a race of essentially asexual creatures, that replicate, instead of procreate, and never get horny. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 28, 2012 - 2:14PM #9
Ebon
Posts: 10,148

Aug 28, 2012 -- 2:09PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Or, perhaps we'll eventually evolve and invent our way out of needing the sexes, or sex, at all.


We'll just be a race of essentially asexual creatures, that replicate, instead of procreate, and never get horny. 



A) That sounds really boring.


B) You're looking at a timeframe of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of years for that to happen.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Aug 28, 2012 - 2:23PM #10
REteach
Posts: 14,833

Biologically, both men and women are basically mobile carriers for our eggs and sperm. There are some people on, say, homosexuality threads, who seem to agree that is all we are.


However, I kind of like men.  They seem to have diverted too much brain to their reproductive tissues, which is why they are so far ahead of women in the Darwin awards, but I like having them around anyway. My husband especially.  Smile

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook