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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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/
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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.
“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 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.
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.
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.
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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…