Home

NY Times: Men, Who Needs Them?

Matt - Sun, 2012-08-26 13:43

Your pedictably regular dose of misandry from the NY Times. You'd think that the editorial dept. was run by feminists! Wait, ... it is... anyway, here it is. Excerpt:

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

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

any study

daveinga - Sun, 2012-08-26 23:36

performed by people receiving degrees influenced by affirmative action, in any way, shape or form, is about as valid as some of the feminist's math statistics, or studies on how boys deserve to be left behind. just because you hang that piece of crap diploma on a wall at your new affirmative action inspired (tax payer funded) job, doesn't mean you will ever be respected by those who actually worked for every grade, job and promotion.

but watching how they stroke each other at work makes going to work much more enjoyable. especially when they get the projects like ensuring other people's crap paper work gets done. sorta like permanent interns.

»

Of course

el cid - Mon, 2012-08-27 22:44

The best way to keep children out of poverty is to give them a father.

I also wonder what they mean by "reproduce without men entirely." Are we talking Virgin Mary redux?

»

May be possible one day by ovum fusion

Matt - Tue, 2012-08-28 00:59

Actually medical science might come up with a reliable way to create a new human by fusing two ova together. The infant would always be female of course since women only carry Y chromosome-bearing gametes, while men produce X and Y-bearing gametes. Last I knew about this, it was not looking like a strong possibility due to problems with the genes merging correctly (surprise: human eggs are designed to be fertilized by sperm, not other eggs!) But where there's a profit margin, there's a way. I predict eventually someone or some group of medical scientists will come up with a way to do this reliably so that if two women want to have their own baby girl together, they will be able to do so. It'll probably cost a hell of a lot of money and gee, why not just adopt one, but people are funny that way.

Same is true, by the way, for two sperm cells. Probably we will also come up with a way to fuse sperm cells together and grow the fetus in an artificial uterus.

I really hope I don't live to see this day coming. I mean, really. I live in a world with nuclear bombs, runaway population, massive pollution, atmospheric warming with the attendant loss of natural habitat/polar ice and freakish weather, widespread pestilence and poverty covering the areas of the planet least able to cope with it, and to top it all off, feminism. I can't say I like the trajectory we're on.

Sincerely yours,

Mr. Sunshine

»