I can only assume this article is some kind of obscure joke, although for the life of me I cannot imagine what the punchline is. Or maybe it’s one of those “I just thought something provocative would open up the discussion” things? Because I certainly cannot believe that the New York Times is, in all seriousness, asking whether we need half the freaking human race.
The editorial asks whether the human race actually needs men. Women, it argues, get pregnant (man, do not get me started on the cissexism here); between providing the egg, pregnancy, and breastfeeding, women’s contribution to children is far greater than men’s donation of a small pile of sperm. Men’s contribution can be easily replaced by some donor sperm. Children raised without fathers do equally well as children raised with fathers, if one controls for class and other variables. Women can be the breadwinnners and with modern weaponry physical strength is not as much of an advantage as it once was; on the other hand, women live longer and are less likely to commit violent crimes.
Sheesh.
Look, guys, we do not have to justify the continued existence of men or women. Even if we invent artificial wombs and artificial eggs, women should still exist. Even though we have invented donor sperm, men should still exist. I don’t think that’s seriously in question outside of Mary Daly and a few of the most hateful corners of the Internet, even by the author of this stupid-ass editorial. What is the point of even talking about it? Men are awesome: Terry Pratchett, Norman Borlaug, Stanislav Petrov… these are not people we particularly want to live without.
Seriously, though, you want a reason cis men should continue to exist? They’re fucking hot. Strapons are just not the same.
About ozyfrantz
I think a key piece of context is missing here, a question that I’ve found interesting lately: Are humans a eusocial species, by the various definitions, and if not, will be become truly eusocial in the future?
For context, other eusocial species include ants, bees, termites, naked mole rats (by some definitions), and the Borg (by some definitions).
I must admit I’m pleasantly intrigued by the idea of our species evolving to indisputably eusocial system, or that we may already be starting down that path. Obviously, it would result in changes some would find drastic, possibly including a society without the sexes as we now know them, but I’m sure a caveman would have thought of modern artificial organs as similarly drastic.
I like men and women (and those of other gender identities), but I’m more interested in this potential path of human evolution, and won’t let my mere preferences stand in the way of us becoming something much greater than our current stage.
From the article: “the genus name for human beings, Homo, reflects an 18th-century masculine bias in science. ”
Except that “homo” is gender-neutral – it simply means “human” in Latin. “Man” would be “vir”…
There’s a lot of that kind of illiteracy going arouond and it’s sad but not surprising to see it at the NYT.
Someone once chid ballgame for coining the term “gynocentric” because it focused on an anatomical feature. Le sigh……
I think this easily qualifies as “hate speech” by any interpretation of the law. If you’re having doubts, contemplate for a moment what an article titled “blacks, who needs them?” or “democrats*” or “christians*” or “blue-eyed*” etc. would ellicit as a response. Not to mention Jews or Muslims, while at it…
Perhaps the oddest thing is that the piece was written by a man. I didn’t notice the byline as I began reading it, but halfway through I decided to scroll back up and look, certain that it would be a woman’s name, and dreading that it might be one of those “gender-ambiguous” names, but no. “Greg Hampikian” = Greg is most definitely a man’s name. It is bad enough that so many women go to such lengths to put us down (and GMP seems to publish or link every one; not sure if that’s good or bad)–now we have one of our own ranks telling us we’re un-necessary.
There will always be gay bashing gays, heterosexual apologists, etc. etc. etc.
It’s not much of a surprise, really. The kind of reductionist thinking that encourages this bull isn’t gender specific.
Considering all the professions where we design, build and maintain modern society are male-dominated (engineering, construction, manufacturing, capping oil wells) yeah I’d say men do some pretty important shit besides reproduction. If all the male coal miners got pissed off and disappeared, you will miss them.
Didn’t Maureen Dowd (NYT) write a book sort of along the same line, called “Are Men Necessary?” ?
Interesting and very provocative stuff!
When she does it, it’s worth reading because she has this habit of thinking things trhough. I haven’t read it, but I think it would be worth the tiime. But don’t demote her to this twit’s league.
I don’t think that’s seriously in question outside of Mary Daly and a few of the most hateful corners of the Internet, even by the author of this stupid-ass editorial.
If that’s the case I don’t think this article would have popped up in such a major mainstream place.
I’m working on what is probably the shortest post I’ve ever done at my blog to sum this up.
If you are arguing in either direction on the question of “Who needs (insert group)?”, you are already fucking wrong.
I’m still trying to figure out how this person got into college as a student in the first place, much less became a professor. The whole article is a mishmash of horrendous illogic.
How? Because as long as one’s illogic doesn’t piss off the wrong people that logic is allowed to run free.
“Men are awesome: Terry Pratchett, Norman Borlaug, Stanislav Petrov… these are not people we particularly want to live without.”
Leaving aside the merits of any particular case I’m sure all of the above mentioned men would have achieved the same things had they been born women.
I read the article. There were lots of ways to frame the discussion the writer was proposing. This was a poor one. We don’t need men at all and women are simply walking wombs?
At a time in history when China and India are aborting female fetuses with gusto, I find any proposal of the non-necessity of any gender a fairly disgusting one.
Two excellent points. First off, the idea of women as walking wombs is enough to set anyone’s teeth on edge. The second part, saying men ar unnecesary, is a trite trope that all The one Good man types ply because they don’t mean it to apply to themselves. iOW it’s just anohter form of male competitive behavior.
The second point is valid, and in light of the fact that the NYT had an article recently about women in Manhattan aborting male “fetuses with gusto”, this shithead really has no excuse for making any claim to a moral conscience.
Ozy,
it’s not as absurd a notion as you think. The relative centrality for reproduction is, certainly has been, I believe, important for a gender’s self concept. Moreover, perceived imbalances in the relative biological centrality generally have implied the invention of social roles that would offset. For an intriguing radical feminist evolutionary (yeah, apparently that exists) perspective with an impressively insightful comment thread that will likely leave you wondering if patriarchy didn’t start out as affirmative action (and whether we may need another kind of affirmative action for men now). I don’t entirely agree with the conclusion – I don’t think motherhood is as central to a woman’s life as it was even hundred years ago, and fatherhood is likely more important. But still, these variables are definitely very important, even if we don’t exactly understand their social transmission mechanisms.
http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2006/05/07/the-origin-of-male-dominance
I am of the opinion that we just got Poe’s Lawed. Even so, crappy and WHY DID YOU WRITE THIS?
I don’t find the idea of men not existing horrible although it’s very much a DO NOT WANT. More concerned wiht attempts to do away with them a la Mary Daly.
And THIS is why feminists are generally assumed to be reverse sexist.. This article is absolutely ridiculous. Talk about reductionist quasi-science.
I wouldn’t normally be so offended, but this question about whether something is “necessary” and DESIRABLE to the further propogation and evolution of the human species is extremely offensive and has a huge historical context. Arguments for eugenics, for instance (forced sterilization and in some cases execution of persons with mental impairment) are largely based on this same logic . The necessary argument wasn’t used to justify genocide, but I challenge you to find a single instance of genocide in the history of humanity that wasn’t based on the same desirability argument that this guy’s article was.
Does anyone else not see a potential logical conclusion from this being “men have more muscle mass but are biologically disposable creatures, so women should use superior weaponry to enslave men and force them into dangerous labor?” Oh, wait, that’s what ALREADY HAPPENS. Don’t see many women on crabbing ships, in coal mines, in militaries, etc etc. And women already hold the weapons of family, duty, and sexual validation over our heads, just to name a few. Powerful weapons, indeed.
Inside of a textbook “preserving humanity” by the lowest common denominator may sound cool, but when applied to real life it creates horrible tragedy.
Every. Single. Time.
I should add that from a purely biological standpoint this guy may have a point. However, the conclusions this article draws are not based solely in that field. He uses one very small area of expert knowledge to justify a conclusion well outside his area of expertise. He is reducing a question that touches on the entire human experience to a very limited set of premises which support a very radical conclusion. That’s pretty darn close to the definition of reductionism, which is, like, the biggest insult you can give to a theoretician in any field.
I doubt anyone can find a psychology, history or anthropology PhD that would agree with this man’s position based on their training and not their personal opinions..
And THIS is why feminists are generally assumed to be reverse sexist.
Hold on Andrew.
1. You may not be making the accusation I think it might be worth pointing out that the guy that wrote this doesn’t appear to ID as feminist (although I wager that you are saying so but rather “this is reasoning used by feminists”).
2. Reverse sexism does nothing but feed into the very wrong idea that the very base definition of sexism is that it’s male against female, therefore by “reversing it” you get female against male sexism. That’s not the case. Sexism is to treat someone a certain way because of their gender. No more, no less. In short what you’re pointing out may be sexism, but not reverse sexism. Reverse sexism does not exist because the reverse of treating someone a certain way because of their gender is what?
I highly doubt fathers are irrelevant to how children do:
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/07/04/50-year-international-study-fathers-contribute-as-much-or-more-than-mothers-to-childs-development/
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/07/22/study-early-father-involvement-vital-to-childrens-welfare/
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/07/06/study-fathers-teach-children-persistence/
No, men are still a pretty important part of the reproductive cycle. That’s why we’re a social species and we form long term relationships — you need at least two people to raise a child. It’s like with most songbirds and birds of prey – even with genetic material from the father, without both parents, the babies would die — they need that much care and attention. And yeah, two parents are ideal, but not necessary. His suggestion implies that money is all that’s needed to raise children, but that money goes to pay for more people to raise your child if you cannot and must work.
This guy disregards all parental care from men as being non-necessary, and as a mammalogist to be, I find it hilariously stupid.
If all the men disappeared tomorrow, the world would be in chaos. For instance: most women lack the upper body strength to be a miner or work on a fishing boat.
But the very nature of the question is sexist. Apply this to any ethnic or racial group and it’d be just as accurate and it’d be damn racist. I don’t think that an ecological niche exists in large amounts for pandas or condors anymore, but I don’t go around screaming at conservationists working on those species to work for a species with more evolutionary potential or one with less charisma.
If anything, this guy reminds me of a male hyena – emasculated, subservient and with a tail tucked between his legs trying to appeal to the dominant females to be allowed to exist. There’s some fun mammalogy for you.
Just to quibble, this guy makes a couple of minor mistakes in the first few paragraphs.
First, men have mammary glands, too — dem nipples are neither vestigial nor just for show. With the right combination of circumstances and hormones, men can lactate. Men don’t stop being mammals just because their mammaries are typically underdeveloped.
Second, until we have a way to artificially do all the things sperm do during reproduction, we will NOT be able to reproduce entirely without men. Even in the horrifying world the author of this article proposes, men would still need to be present, if only as sperm banks (I’m reminded of Frank Herbert’s Axlotl Tanks, here).
These are but quibbles, however, compared to the major flaws in his argument.
It is a legitimate fact that from the perspective of generating offspring, men contribute to the process for a handful of minutes; women contribute to it for nine months.
That said, as social animals, successful reproduction demands far more than mere fertilization. We are k-selected organisms: we cannot survive without parental care. Furthermore, the process of creating an emotionally and physically healthy human being is not only very demanding and resource-intensive, it is also not an exact science: no one can tell you exactly how to do it, in part because each person is different. Consequently, it often takes a village to raise a child.
Now, men are not strictly necessary as parents: any group of concerned human beings can do the job.
Nor are “male figures” strictly necessary from a cultural perspective, since gender performance is a social construct that is always in flux.
But none of this means that we should get rid of men!
Rather, we need to take the focus off men, and off women, and start talking about PEOPLE.
Statistically, human beings tend to have either masculine or feminine gonads, though there is more variation on this sort of thing than we think. Likewise: statistically, many people tend to identify in such a way that they are comfortable with the body and gonads they have… but many others do not, and there are as many different genders are there are people.
Consequently, it is rather a waste of time to even talk about who needs “men” or “women,” when these groups themselves are ultimately arbitrary pigeonholes.
Rather than wasting time and resources in pointless arguments over social constructs that are always changing and often highly subjective, we should be focusing our energy on ways to make sure that the search for, and construction of, a comfortable identity is facilitated equally for everyone, and that each and every gender out there (all seven billion of them) is given equal standing next to every other gender.