'A World without Men?'

Submitted by anthony on Mon, 2011-12-26 21:07

Article here. Excerpt:

'Last year an article in The Atlantic asked the headline question, "Are Fathers Necessary?" The answer was thoughtfully supplied in the subhead -- "A paternal contribution may not be as essential as we think." Uh-oh.

The article cites a study conducted by researchers from New York University and the University of Southern California which "consolidated the available data on the role of gender in child rearing." The results of that data-crunching The Atlantic summarizes as follows:

[O]ur ideas of what dads do and provide are based primarily on contrasts between married-couple parents and single-female parents: an apples-to-oranges exercise that conflates gender, sexual orientation, marital status, and biogenetic relationships in ways that a true comparison of parent gender -- one that compared married gay-male couples or married lesbian couples to married heterosexuals, or single fathers to single mothers -- would not. Most of the data fail to distinguish between a father and the income a father provides, or between the presence of a father and the presence of a second parent, regardless of gender.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Just addressing the use of laboratory techniques to produce cross-fertilizable gametes from same-sexed sources or stem cells, I got this to say: Egad.

They make it sound like it isn't frought with process hazards and very high cost-benefit ratios. Let's assume someone really, really, really wants to have a baby with another person of their own sex and wants that baby to be a genetic cross-- how much will they have to pay to make that happen and how many times will the process fail? The natural way sexed species produce offspring is already filled with failures (ie, spontaneous abortions due to the female's body detecting a serious process error has occurred) and production defects enough as it is. Using a lab dish to create a new individual "the hard way" makes absolutely no sense from both a cost standpoint as well as an efficiency standpoint.

Should wealthy gay people or just single individuals seeking their own genetically-combined or genetically-exclusive offspring though be prohibited from getting this opportunity? Well, that's one hell of an ethical question given the high likelihood of birth defects. However anytime anyone goes to reproduce, whether it be the natural way (ie: intercourse) or by "artificial means", there is that risk. Seems both the law and individuals got over that reservation years ago. So as to this particular case, I don't see why gay people of either sex shouldn't be allowed the chance to do so if it is available. I just think it's one hell of a lot of money to spend to create a child with a high chance of being born with birth defects.

And as for this method replacing men as fathers... well, even if all we are considering when speaking of fatherhood is the act or state of having fathered a child, I seriously doubt the vast majority of humanity, who does not make the kind of money necessary to afford having test-tube babies of any kind, is going to be rushing to the lab anytime soon. For the vast majority of the human race, the natural way of having a baby is both much more cost-effective, reliable in terms of producing a viable infant, and a lot more fun to pursue than is sitting around waiting for a letter or phone call from a lab. I mean, which would you rather do: wait for a phone call or f-ck like a rabbit until you got a bun in the oven?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2011-12-27 02:56

I avoided reading the article at first because the excerpt seemed to indicate the article would be pure male-bashing. In fact, it's not--the writer points out the accomplishments of men:

"1) Literature -- From Homer to Stan Lee, the majority of the world's great stories have been spun by men.

2) Technology -- Men have invented almost everything worth inventing, from the printing press to the iPad.

3) Food -- How many farmers throughout history have been women? Exactly.

4) Comedy -- A world without men would certainly be a world without jokes and laughter.

I mean, let's face it -- men invented civilization itself. Can anyone really deny that? So for all those ladies thinking that they would be better off without their hairy, smelly other halves, just think about that. And if that doesn't convince you of the necessity of men, just ask yourself:

Who would open your jars?"

It's short and worth reading.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Tue, 2011-12-27 23:17