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.
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.