[W]omen live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense. If men were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?That's from the NYT, which is, of course, written for women. Stuff like this is considered light entertainment. It will be interspersed with serious articles about the "war on women." Enjoy!
***
That last link goes to a search within the NYT for "war on women." I was amused by the old things that popped up.From 1927: "Berlin Men War on Women Who 'Doll Up' at Meals."
Also 1927: "Stanley (Wis.) Bachelors War On Nuptial Lures by Women." (I don't want to buy the article, but I can see this snippet: "... of Stanley have declared 'war on women.' An organization has been tentatively for 'mutual protection from devices now used by the fair sex to entangle single...'")
1911: "WAR ON WOMEN GAMBLERS.; Chicago Detective Visits Fashionable Houses to Stop Poker Games." ("Chief of Police McWeeny declared war to-day on poker playing by women in private.")
1972: "The Church's War on Women." ("Pope Paul VI has reaffirmed the rules of priestly celibacy and debarred women from formal investiture by bishops in Roman Catholic orders. There were to be no female deacons, let alone female priests.")
1943: "Dr. Mead, Anthropologist, Reports On Effect of War on Women's Garb; She Tells Members of Fashion Group, Inc., That Utility Clothes in England Will Do Much to Reduce Class Consciousness." (What? Again I'm not paying to get to the article, but, Googling, I found a Smithsonian article saying that during WWII, the U.S. and British commands commissioned Margaret Mead to try to figure out why American and British soldiers had trouble understanding each other. She discovered that the British couldn't answer the question what's your favorite color without getting all complicated about it and concluded it had to do with their class consciousness.)
Most apt, when it comes to the 2012 election, is this February 2011 editorial, "The War on Women."
These are treacherous times for women’s reproductive rights and access to essential health care. House Republicans mistakenly believe they have a mandate to drastically scale back both even as abortion warfare is accelerating in the states. To stop them, President Obama’s firm leadership will be crucial. So will the rising voices of alarmed Americans.I'm guessing that the current usage of the term began right there.
पोस्ट्स
११२ टिप्पण्या:
""Ultimately the question is, does 'mankind' really need men?""
What theory better addresses this question:
a. Intelligent design
b. Theory of evolution
That honey do list isn't going to get done on it's own, now is it?
If men were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?
And, who, pray tell, is going to fix that female model car when it does break down?
Bad jokes aside, you wonder just what world the folks who write these articles live in? In the world I live in, it's Men and pretty much only men who do an awful lot of the work that needs to be done, especially if that work is dirty, dangerous, or techno-geeky.
Without genetically re-engineering women, I don't see how getting rid of men is going to make women want to do those "masculine" tasks that just need to get done for a modern economy to work.
Like a fish needs a bicycle?
I think the NYT should do a cost benefit analysis on if we need a whole laundry list of ethnic & racial minorities. I mean, why restrict our genocidal fantasies to gender only? Why stop the party so early?
I mean, does the world really need any Burkina Fasonians?
This is what passes for "critical thinking" on the Liberal left...
The lesbian DINCs and the professionally employed metrosexuals that inhabit Manhattan can always hire a real man from another borough or an illegal Dominican to do that necessary but icky kinda shit though, eh?
"If men were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?"
I think this is saying that women would choose cars based on their color: Buy the white ones, not the black ones.
Interesting who has the Handmaid Tale fantasies isn't it?
Ironically, women are much less likely to discover the breakthroughs in cloning technology necessary to replace men.
The human species needs men as much as it needs women, which is to say that it's possible to develop technology which will make either sex technically superfluous. If we intend to conduct an experiment and replace sexual reproduction with something artificial, then there is no legitimate reason to offer preference to women.
As for the so-called "war on women," there is clearly a war being waged, but it is by a minority of women on men and the human species. They have developed a predisposition which holds both men and all human beings in low regard. They support denigration of individual dignity and the devaluation of human life for the sake of preserving dreams of instant gratification (i.e. physical, material, ego).
Well, good luck to women and men. The loser can be enslaved in service to the victor. Now that would be progress. Negative progress, but progress nonetheless.
Let the experiment proceed. Now we know why they support progressive involuntary exploitation and elective abortion of developing human life. Their outlook on life is limited to their selfish interests.
It should be interesting to learn if the human ego is capable of sustained denial of the natural order.
"Ultimately the question is, does 'mankind' really need men?"
See, when anybody voices that as a question, that's when men should kill all the poofs and make the women our slaves.
I'm just sayin'....
Back in 1967 Valerie Solanas wrote the SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men), which advocated the the elimination of the male sex. It's good to see the New York Times has caught up with this, uh, seminal feminist thinker.
It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the mail has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.
Solanas went on to shoot Andy Warhol and almost kill him. She died in the Tenderloin of San Francisco in 1988 at the age of 52.
Solanas and her manifesto remain semi-celebrated within feminist circles. The SCUM Manifesto was included in Robin Morgan's groundbreaking anthology, Sisterhood is Powerful. Since then, wiki notes, "Solanas's life has been the focus of numerous performances, films, musical compositions, and publications."
Of course it does. Who are the wimmen going to make sammiches for?
YoungHegelian,
In the world I live in, it's Men and pretty much only men who do an awful lot of the work that needs to be done, especially if that work is dirty, dangerous, or techno-geeky.
Look around:
How much was actually created by women? 1%? 2%?
And they've got the NERVE to even posit this as a question?
If I had been born back-in-the-day, feminism would've been nipped in the bud before they ever knew what hit 'em,...
If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts.
--Camille Paglia
Well, seeing how every other progressive bucket list item is going, I can only pray the Church sticks to its guns on priests and deacons.
The progressives have had an openly announced agenda that calls for eliminating 6 of the 7 billion people on earth... to save the planet.
And now the rest of the story comes out, Mein Fuhrer: The 10,000 or so master environmentalist males eliminate all other men and old women, but keep the young nubile females to procreate with daily at luxuory resorts amongst the vast Imperial park lands once called North America.
Only women could make THIS GUY sound sane,...
The only problem with this theory...
Michael Ryan,
The only problem with this theory...
O.K. - popcorn:
This is going to get GOOD,...
Chief of Police McWeeny. In Chicago.
"...perhaps we should perform a cost-benefit analysis."
What's this "we" shit, sister?
People who speak in the first person plural when by "we" you mean you should be chopped off at the knees. Metaphorically. Maybe.
I mean, does the world really need any Burkina Fasonians?
Or lefthanders. Surely it would be easier for everyone if we got rid of all the lefthanders....
Oh brave new world populated by white, right-handed lesbians!
@Michael Ryan,
Careful there, buddy! That ST-TOS "brain" phrase has played a vital part in the 27 year success of my marriage.
That episode, by the way, was written as a joke by the writers, but Rodenberry went with it anyway!
It would make sense as a space colonization scenario, because the choke point for reproduction and building up population numbers is wombs, not sperm.
Of course, viewing a woman as valuable because she's got a *womb* isn't at all popular or "feminist."
It's all about the vagina.
*Sigh* And to think that we used to pretend we wanted to be valued for our brains.
How many generations would it take for the deepest wish of womankind to be fulfilled—ovaries will drop and clitorises grow and voila—Cock and Balls.
The real question is will evolution proceed quickly enough to preempt the inevitable blinding of the species—from scratching each others' eyes out.
does 'mankind' really need men?
As long as there are flat tires and spiders it will.
I've seen articles claiming women's ability to do higher math would 'really be' on par with that of men who do higher math, if only... If only women could work at it in their own way, or if math textbooks were different, or if the culture didn't discourage women... blah, blah.
Newton invented most of physics - and the math needed to describe it - by himself. Alone. There was no male dominance in the field, because there was no field.
Where is the female Newton? Or Galileo, or Kepler, or Huygens, or Hooke or Boyle or Descartes?
What stopped a woman from inventing math herself?
Rather than turning it out, I hope the last guy that leaves climbs to the top of the ladder, unscrews the light bulb and then smashes it.
Old, maybe not well known joke is: If pussy grew on trees, all men would all be forest rangers.
Add in the fact that you can almost grow a baby in a lab, the alternative question is, do men really need women?
Lessee now, how many women ran up into the towers on 9/11?
@TWM,
As a counterpart to your "pussy-tree" joke, let me play gender traitor here and post some "Men" jokes for the ladies:
Q: What do call the useless skin at the end of a penis?
A: A Man.
Q: Why do men name their penis?
A: Because they hate taking orders from a total stranger!
See! See! The chicks are so lame, we've got to do the work to come up with their damn anti-male jokes!
(Admit it, guys: you laughed, too)
Upon further thought, I'd say when women stop dressing up as big vaginas they can say they don't need men. Cause that shit is just fricken' weird.
The men will be the ones cloned.
Why?
Stronger, more aggressive, more likely to defend the group. It sure wasn't women who fought all the wars, conquered the wildernesses, sailed the seas.
What will the men have for sex? Why computerize mechanical sexbots, of course! Ain't technology wonderful!
Right out of Serenity!
" Right out of Serenity!"
Everythings shiny!
Synova, only entrance to the uterus, through the vagina.
I'm vastly amused by women who can't see any value to men beyond reproduction.
Reverse the genders to see the problem. Is it really so farfetched that technology might replace women for reproduction, too? Any gloating articles being written about that? I doubt it, because men realize that they need women for more than reproduction. The number of women who fantasize about a world without men is much higher than the opposite. Yet, it's the "war on women"...
Reducing men and women to sex and power is tragic. There's so much more.
Cracker: Look around:
How much was actually created by women? 1%? 2%?
Try 100%, kook. We are the vile spawn of woman and are slaves to them the rest of our lives. Why do you think it's called the Mother of Invention?
OOOLA says:Synova, only entrance to the uterus, through the vagina.
Are you on crack?? How about a c-section or syringe...
I'm talking about impregnation, not birth. Syringe goes through the vagina too, not an incision through the uterine or abdominal wall. You want the spermies to find the egg, now don't ya?
And when placing a fertizeled egg in a uterus, how do you think it's gets there, through which port?
I've always found it interesting how such genocidal (gendercidal?) thoughts are a uniquely female phenomenon.
You would be hard pressed to find similar wishes amongst even the most misogynistic of males but amongst women such fantasies are commonplace.
Ann wrote:
[Margaret Meade] discovered (yeah, right) that the British couldn't answer the question what's your favorite color without getting all complicated about it and concluded it had to do with their class consciousness.
The Bridge of Death
The Bridge Keeper (an American) managed to trip up at least one kaaa-nighit (all Brits) on the favorite color question. A 20% kill rate on one question isn't anything to write your dear old sainted mum about, but it better than zilch.
"Synova, only entrance to the uterus, through the vagina."
Sure.
But we don't associate vagina with babies, even though babies go through it, normally. A womb is different.
Can you imagine the Womb Dialogs? Completely different thing. Womb or uterus says "brood mare" in ways that vagina doesn't.
But it seems to me that this whole "we don't need men to reproduce" is out of the Womb Dialogs. It's about brooding.
"You want the spermies to find the egg, now don't ya?"
Not every time. In fact, not most times.
Well Synova, I'm an old fashioned gal, a bit antiquated. When I was in my fertile years, I prefered a penis to a syringe. I suspect men need not worry, they still can serve a purpose, and do it with a smile. :)
"I suspect men need not worry, they still can serve a purpose, and do it with a smile. :)"
The feminists are coming for you Allie . . . beware
Also... you know what?
I wrote a story in 1983 when I was 18 years old set in a post-apocalyptic world where a small group of women assassins had the secret of having children, all girls, as they would be, without men.
The science ideas are interesting and not even slightly new.
The story was a romance repudiating the all-women *trope*. It was already a trope.
The stories about all-women's societies had been out there in SF for some time by then. The era for them and those ideas about single gender societies was over, the exploration already dated.
In 1983.
The question about if men were cars is ridiculous because it appears to be answered by a woman who's never had any interest in a Ferrari or Ducati motorcycle.
Did you hear in the news that they found a way to make synthetic sperm? Now women don't need men even to reproduce.
The problem is that they keep it in a mason jar. On the top shelf.
I've always found it interesting how such genocidal (gendercidal?) thoughts are a uniquely female phenomenon.
I once read a science fiction story in which women were exterminated. It was called The Screwfly Solution by James Tiptree Jr. and it was a real humdinger.
A decade or so later I learned that James Tiptree Jr. was the pseudonym of a woman named Alice Sheldon.
Ann, you keep bringing this up, and I'm not sure why. I agree, biologically, women are required. Men are dispensable.
I'll go further. I think almost ALL women are bi-sexual. Buy a random porno flick, and I'll bet there is a good chance two women are having sex in it. Women watch Porno too, yet they don't find it offensive. Now, buy 100 random porno flicks (no gay porn), and you will find ZERO instances of men fucking each other.
So women can get along with each other. The question is can they be satisfied without sons? Oh yes, the predilection, especially with grandmothers, is a daughter. that's easy to see if you look at the gene mappings.
But a mother? She has her DNA in the son.
Women will want to have sons. I doubt they will want them to become sperm donors, or sent off to a farm.
Please stop with this ridiculous nonsense. Or wait another hundred years, and then your point will be moot.
BTW, I recently said you had a 1/10000 insight into something. For a woman, I think it is lower odds, like 1/100000. If you want to get us men all excited about being replaced, then think about progress.
I love smart women. I'm thinking maybe I've met 5 in my life (yes, I have a crush on Condoleezza Rice). But there are so few of them. Most of them are process oriented follow the rules bots, trying to be something they aren't, especially in the technical fields, you know, the ones driving the world forward.
It's the extremely rare woman who has real stuff. In my experience, these few women link together ideas men simply cannot, and I view it as a gender difference.
And if none of that make sense to you, consider that women chose men. Men are willing to have inconsequential sex (biologically speaking, not morally or religiously speaking) with about 100 times the frequency women are.
This means that women have made something they prefer. Perhaps men have made the perfect substitute, but somehow I think that's BS (oops, Bull Shit) too.
So continue on with this. I don't know your actual stance, since you seem intent on tweaking us men. Hope it's fun for you.
Actually, as I think of it, from a selfish gene perspective, women should prefer sons. They do not have to share the female part with the father's mother. Or father, if that makes sense.
Perhaps that is why there is a special relationship between the father and a daughter, that isn't there between a father and a son.
Men will always be around. For one (as the article pointed out), "they're entertaining." And two, as a young girl once asked, in a world without men "who will open the peanut butter?"
There's another reason women like to have men around. Without men there wouldn't be tile bathrooms, flush toilets and nice warm bathtubs.
Sexual reproduction has an evolutionary purpose. Replace it with cloning and the human race will be extinct within a few thousand years.
You know, for any other group, the fact that members of the group live shorter lives, graduate from high school and college at lower rates, are more likely to be victims of violent crime, and are more likely to be imprisoned, would be considered by the New York Times incontrovertible proof of societal bias against the group.
But if the group is men, the NYT considers it a reason to contemplate genocide, however non-seriously.
Reuben, Reuben, I've been thinking
What a place the world would be
If the men were all transported
far across the Northern Sea.
Reuben, Reuben, I've been thinking
What a place the world would be
If the men were all transported
far across the Northern Sea.
You might want to read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Y-The-Descent-Steve-Jones/dp/B000C4T1YK/ref=la_B000APWTUE_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1345969856&sr=1-4
The review score is not much, but if you look at the reviews they are written mostly by men, who are trying to kill the messenger, and if you read the book you'll understand why. Actually, it looks that reviewers that gave the lowest score did not read the whole book after being "offended" in openning chapters.
The author is (was? by now) head of genetics etc department of UCL that pioneered research in genbetic antropology.
I don't know about 'mankind', but I love the men in my life. I can live perfectly without NYT, though, and I'm sure so can 'mankind'
"That bias [masculine], however, is becoming harder to sustain, as men become less relevant to both reproduction and parenting."
So what now, men will not pay alimony and child support?
Women need men like fish need to be free of a crippling parasite burden.
Societies of clones get hammered by parasites. Not enough genetic variation.
technology might replace women for reproduction, too? Any gloating articles being written about that? I doubt it, because men realize that they need women for more than reproduction.
Haven't been around the man-o-sphere very much, have you?
Observation usual sparks a phrase used in describing what is observed.
Congress has put forth reproductive rights bills and resolutions accounting for a good percentage of its output for 2 full years now. States with packed GOP leadership have been unrelenting on the issues of Planned Parenthood, clinics, and abortion.
What else are women to think? Is this just "out of the blue" coincidence?
War on Women is an excellent description. If it isn't, then what is it and why aren't men outraged?
Zach said...
Women need men like fish need to be free of a crippling parasite burden."
do women are to fish as men are to parasites...
I am not sure that the article is actually asking if men are necessary. For the species to survive they are but when they store up their semen in such large quantities and find other ways to deliver it to the egg, one has to wonder where some brains are.
I have to wonder if that Margaret Mead British gender/class study was as fraudulent and "visionary" as her thoroughly-exploded and worthless Coming of Age in Samoa.
Simple test: Walk to a window, look out, point to something made by a woman. Name a female explorer. Not too hard.
""Ultimately the question is, does 'mankind' really need men?""
"Why have both men and women turned on feminism so harshly? I can't figure it out!" --- feminist hag.
Can she explain why I, as a man, should do a thing to assist her with anything ever again?
Why do more and more men find American women specifically impossible to deal with?
Because chicks like this poison the well. And do so badly.
What else are women to think? Is this just "out of the blue" coincidence?
You know more women than men are pro-life, right?
War on Women is an excellent description. If it isn't, then what is it and why aren't men outraged?
It's what happens when a purely political question (abortion) is effectively removed from the political arena.
And why aren't men outraged? Listening to crones like you, why the hell should we be outraged? It's not OUR bodies.
damikesc said...
"Why do more and more men find American women specifically impossible to deal with?"
Because it appears that it is "your way or the highway" and your cooperation with women is strictly on your terms.
Don't worry. You still earn more than we do working at the same job so you are safe in your master/serf view of things but in the end, the sooner you treat women as equals in opportunity and reward, the happier you will be and those around you will be.
I'm not a hag. I look good in a bikini and don't mind that I get looked at. I'm not a feminist in the strictest sense. I enjoy men and have many good male friends. However, I don't take BS from them and speak up when it occurs. I have also found that if I don't do it for myself, waiting for a male to deem to do it for me isn't worth the wait.
That may threaten you but if it does, then you are the one with the problem.
Why do more and more men find American women specifically impossible to deal with?
Keep in mind that 75% of American women find these winers as laughably idiotic as we do.
Of course men are necessary even in a techno-reproductive world where the wimmin are doin' it for themselves.
It might be anonymous enough to avoid child support payments...but then you have to have a bunch of men working and earning good money to get taxed to give the government benefits to the solomoms.
Girl on girl in porn is for male eyes.
I do not want to do a chick.
Re: girl on girl:
I can think of two marriages that ended because hubby wanted threesome, wife brought in friend, he wanted to watch them get it on, they did...and decided hubby was extraneous to their new relationship.
Law of Unintended Consequences
A society of all women would be catfight hell.
And it would be easily dominated by the Muslim invasion/immigration and the establishment of the 12th Caliphate.
A little sharia will put a stop to this nonsense.
"You still earn more than we do working at the same job..."
Liar.
I guess "political and cultural progressivism" only frowns upon selected bigotries.
Let's rewrite the quote Ann extracted for race rather than gender:
"White people live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense. If blacks were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?"
Who thinks such a formulation would enjoy scarce op-ed space in the Times?
http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/08/bigotry-at-new-york-times.html
I mean I'm sure that males have written similar stories at one time or another but they don't constantly wish for it in major papers.
Hell, the only major story that I can think of that involves gendercide and was written by a man was the comic "Y-The Last Man", and that story basically went out of its way to point out how women were as bad as men.
Women are the primary agents in the War on Women.
Women kill more girls every year than men do.
And yet...you ask feminazis to oppose gendercide...crickets.
Even in the case of a country with a one-child policy that will kill born women (girls) in so-called orphanages when the desired boy child comes along.
Even when in some countries legal sex selective abortion is resulting in huge imbalances in the gender of the population.
Crickets.
Stand up against the girlocide and then you have permission to tell me about how much you care about women.
If there is a "gay gene," and you could test for it in pre-natal screening, would it be OK to abort your child because it's gay?
Why or why not?
What would the NYT say?
"but when they store up their semen in such large quantities and find other ways to deliver it to the egg, one has to wonder where some brains are."
indeed, same goes for the woman whose life goal is to make an artificial womb. and the women cheering her on, as that would mean no more pregnancy wage-gape.
"You still earn more than we do working at the same job "
generalizing much? How about some women are better at sports than men?
"Hell, the only major story that I can think of that involves gendercide and was written by a man was the comic "Y-The Last Man", and that story basically went out of its way to point out how women were as bad as men."
but how exactly were men bad? He mentioned China's lop-sided gender ratio and how that meant men went mad.
otoh it'd more probably mean women will go sane.
on amazon you'd find Wilson's review condensed to:
"...an impressive and comprehensive account of sex ratios..." James Q. Wilson The Wall Street Journal
I have a good friend who hates men. She loves her father, brother, uncles, coworkers, and male friends. In fact, she's fond of every man in her life. Nevertheless, she says she hates men.
kentuckyliz said...
Women are the primary agents in the War on Women.
Women kill more girls every year than men do.
And yet...you ask feminazis to oppose gendercide...crickets."
Far too much Rush Limbaugh for you. There really is no point in discussion with anyone who can rattle off slogan and soundbite.
It makes you sound empty headed.
The Handmaids Tale keeps coming up in conversation, but in that book didn't women give up personal reproduction to become equal with men and all reproduction was done in test tubes?
So, my question is, who needs WOMEN? Many women in fact rebel against the idea that the sexual roles are a certain way largely because women are the ones with wombs and thus almost pretend they don't have them in the interest of being like guys. And we all know the animosity that feminism has for women who stay at home and raise kids.
As such, it seems more likely that women will become redundant in the procreation game.
kentuckyliz wrote:
If there is a "gay gene," and you could test for it in pre-natal screening, would it be OK to abort your child because it's gay?
Why or why not?
What would the NYT say?
Forget the Times, what would Allie Oop say? What would Andy say?
Paul wrote:
The men will be the ones cloned.
Why?
Stronger, more aggressive, more likely to defend the group. It sure wasn't women who fought all the wars, conquered the wildernesses, sailed the seas.
When the empire decided to make an army of clones in the Star Wars prequel did they choose Jane Fett, or Janga Fett? What would be the point of cloning the weaker sex for things like war? or construction?
Now, if you wanted clones who could work a stripper pole, that's where you'd clone women.
BTW, as for the stories of single-sex societies, one of Lois McMaster Bujold's decidedly lesser early novels was Ethan of Athos, whose protagonist was an obstetrician from a male-only world (reproduction via advanced post-IVF reproductive technology) out and about in the universe. It had its amusing points, but again, we find a female writer indulging in gender apartheid fantasy, and doing a less-than-career-average job of it at that.
Why do men have a problem with American, no say rather "Western" women? Because an increasing number of them have abandoned their role in the cultural contract. "Women Hold Up Half the Sky" is a feminist battlecry, and yet it is these exact ideologues who have deliberately let down their portion of the firmament. Why wonder that their opposite numbers have in many cases likewise dropped their burdens, walked away from the project of civilization? Barring the advent of Bujold's imaginary uterine replicators, we are a dying culture, either to be reformed from within by natalists and Mormons like a caterpillar in chrysalis, or devoured from without by a predatory culture which has yet to take the self-destructive course we are on.
On the other hand, many cultures are simultaneously charging down this desolation row - the Soviets, already collapsed, the Chinese chasing the Japanese leader over that demographic cliff, the Europeans in this as in many other things our pilot-fish in damnation.
Leaving aside the "benefits" of an all female society, the question of; how would we get from here to there, comes up.
Most babies are the result of heterosexual couples and therefore contain men who presumably don't hate men and women who love at least one man. So they are unlikely to decide to have only girls.
Single women are a large and growing source of children--the majority among african americans already. They might want only female children and the price for flow cytometry to sort male producing sperm from female producing is only going to get cheaper. So they could do it. The problem is that a high percentage of single mothers are not exactly "productive members of society". It seems highly improbable that a sophisticated society could be sustained if the majority of citizens are welfare queens.
dbp: The problem is that a high percentage of single mothers are not exactly "productive members of society". It seems highly improbable that a sophisticated society could be sustained if the majority of citizens are welfare queens.
This came up a couple of months ago when another poster quoted a single mother as saying, "I don't need no man for nothing. I got my own welfare checks."
In a world without men, will women be forced to nag each other?
Just before I read this post my wife and I were sitting on our back deck talking to our boys (10, 9 and 6) while our daughter played elsewhere. My wife turned to me and said, "Can you believe how many of their conversations start with the phrase, 'What if?' One of them says it and then they can go on for an hour discussing the craziest things. Girls never talk like that."
At some point during every great discovery or advance someone has said "What if... ." Eliminate the men and you eliminate most of the "what ifs."
Hilarious. Everything on the planet would be broken in 3 months.
TV Movie in 1974 starring John Saxon and Diana Muldaur Planet Earth about a man who wakes from suspended animation in the 22nd century and finds that the world is ruled by Amazonian type women and men are slaves and sperm donors. I saw it as a child and never forgot it. I don't know why it made such an impression. But Logan's Run did as well.
Kimisch: I dunno what it is, but the fantasies about gender apartheid utopias were written by men exclusively prior to about 1968 or so, and almost exclusively by women after 1968-1972 or so. About when Steinem started her schitk, Gloria Steinem of "we have become the men we wanted to marry". Likewise, the cultural descendants of Calhoun and company became blacks about 1965 or so. You tell me why these two parallel facts are so, and maybe I can tell you what has happened to us. "The left has no historical memory to speak of" seems like a fruitful line of argument if you ask me.
the fantasies about gender apartheid utopias were written by men exclusively prior to about 1968 or so.
Mitch H: I can't think of any. Which is not to say there weren't. Examples?
To be honest, I'm not familiar with them - the whole genre of "Venus needs Men" seems to be a pulpish thing that only really leaves traces in crap film and TV & the pulp fandom, which was never very popular.
Ah, TV Tropes rides to the rescue. I had forgotten Glory Season, by David Brin, which puts it well inside our alleged "female author fantasizing about gender separation" era. I have no excuse, I've got that book on a shelf somewhere around here. But the Amazonian society is an ancient and largely mythic conceit, going back to Herodotus, after all.
Because it appears that it is "your way or the highway" and your cooperation with women is strictly on your terms.
Men are willing to negotiate. Women, increasingly, are not.
Don't worry. You still earn more than we do working at the same job so you are safe in your master/serf view of things
Let's go ahead and address this bullshit:
Why would a company hire men AT ALL if this mind-numbing idiocy was remotely true?
Who WOULDN'T take a guaranteed 15% or so savings on wages to just have women as employees?
Do you recognize how asinine this entire theory is?
I'm not a hag. I look good in a bikini and don't mind that I get looked at
General rule: People who are attractive do not need to tell others how attractive they are.
I have also found that if I don't do it for myself, waiting for a male to deem to do it for me isn't worth the wait.
Based on your posting, you likely frequently have to do it for yourself. Most real men wouldn't tolerate a castrating hag.
That may threaten you but if it does, then you are the one with the problem.
Radio commenter calls a slut a slut for demanding that taxpayers pay for her birth control and women are on the verge of combusting spontaneously. It ranks up with the Holocaust in the pantheon of humanitarian crises.
Men note that articles about how men aren't needed by anybody are a bit offensive are just whiners.
Intriguing double standard ya got there.
Early last year my best friend sent me a picture he'd taken when he went to pick his daughter up from preschool. The teacher had asked the kids what they wanted to be when they grew up and written their answers on a white board. The boys: 3 policemen, 1 fireman. The girls: 1 dentist, 2 fairies, 1 princess with a prince, 1 princess ballerina & 1 elephant.
well damikesc..
that was some pile of horseshit you unloaded there.
tell you what. if i can demonstrate that women are paid less for comparable work will you go stick your head up your ass?
I had forgotten Glory Season, by David Brin, which puts it well inside our alleged "female author fantasizing about gender separation" era. I have no excuse, I've got that book on a shelf somewhere around here. But the Amazonian society is an ancient and largely mythic conceit, going back to Herodotus, after all.
Mitch H: Brin's a post-1968 writer. In any event I was thinking the gender-flip of the NYT/Valerie Solanas idea, which would be a utopia with only men and no women, written by a man.
I can't think of any of those.
Lindsey, you don't even have to go that far. Just explain why a company wouldn't hire women solely and get a huge leg up on their competitors.
I know you cant prove men and women doing the same job with identical credentials, experience, and work history are paid differently.
I'm giving you an easier task. Very male of me.
C. J. Cherryh. Cyteen. The future?
What's really adorable is women pondering whether they need men while traveling 80mph, 100 feet off the ground, over 50 tons of reinforced concrete in an air conditioned car that runs silently on explosions.
That actually happened once. I was there.
So like those who would disarm themselves as a first step in the forced suspension of the 2nd amendment for others, these twits miss that the boys aren't likely to go quietly and when they don't there will be nothing they can do about it? And here I was worried.
The story is right there next to the fashion pages. And Lindsey says "I look good in a bikini." Who are these women dressing for?
As for the genocide half of the human race view, who does the killing?
Liberal men: you subscribe to an ideology that fantasizes about eliminating you. Talk about self-hating.
"91% of the nation’s electrical engineers are men, and if they don’t show up for work, there is no one to monitor and manage the nation’s electrical supplies. Assuming some automation (designed by men, naturally) kicks in for the day, we had all better pray there are no problems. 97.6% of electrical power line installers and maintenance workers are men.
Lights out, ladies and gentlemen.
Don’t bother turning on your taps, either. Or flushing your toilets. 95.5% of water and liquid waste treatment plant and system operators are men.
Think you might be able to get out of town for the one day the men don’t show up?
Think again.
Planes are out.
95.9% of aircraft pilots and flight engineers are men. If you happen to find a plane with a female pilot, don’t get too excited. 98.4% of aircraft mechanics and service technicians are men. You can, however, be assured of your comfort as you sit on a pilotless aircraft that has no mechanic for pre-flight clearance, because 77.6% of flight attendants are female."
More here: http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/17/what-would-happen-if-no-men-showed-up-for-work-today/
Does mankind really need men?
Think about it. it is mostly men who are developing the reprogenetics technology that makes it possible for this question to be asked.
It is men who make up the more than 6 privately-funded efforts to develop fusion power.
It is mostly men (there are some women involved) who are developing the SENS regeneration biotechnology to cure aging and allow women to live longer, healthier lifespans.
To ask the question is to answer it.
Frank Herbert was all over this 40 years ago...
Axlotl Tanks
A feminist and sociologist named Charotte Perkins Gilman wrote in Herland (1915) of a female-only utopia high in the Andes mountains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herland_(novel)
Feminists have long liked it, although the fact that, in the proper progressive fashion of the day, she peopled it with "Aryan" women. They also don't seem concerned that the isolated plateau has no reproductive freedom. A few Overmothers decide who can be a mother.
For a taste of its flavor, imagine a rather superior-sounding female NPR reporter taking a rather wimpy male to visit to an isolated women-only town in New England. "We are women. We do it better." That sort of thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herland_(novel)
Interestingly, the novel sees abortion as an evil and blames it on men.
Brin's "Glory Season" is definitely worth a read. IIRC (its been a while since I've read it) The society created by women is extremely clannish, a world divided along gene pool lines, with "Guild" membership mandatory. Allegiance is to your guild. Lots of women in the story outcast from guild membership for being "different". Hardly a loving, all-inclusive culture.
I though Brin was spot on.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा