Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do we need men anymore?

wn
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 3:31:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A blog inspired this question, well, I guess because I was quite bored then, and got a little sad when I took a glance at some of its content (the website though wasn't hateful nor depressing in nature).
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 8:09:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 3:31:32 PM, wn wrote:
A blog inspired this question, well, I guess because I was quite bored then, and got a little sad when I took a glance at some of its content (the website though wasn't hateful nor depressing in nature).

Well do you want humanity to go extinct?

I'll blow up all the sperm banks too
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 8:35:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 3:31:32 PM, wn wrote:
A blog inspired this question, well, I guess because I was quite bored then, and got a little sad when I took a glance at some of its content (the website though wasn't hateful nor depressing in nature).

But jokes aside, could you provide the context in which the article made that assertion or provide a link?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 9:22:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is one of the ethical dilemmas brought on by reproductive technology. It could make for some interesting discussion, but in all honesty I think women could make a pretty compelling argument that they don't need us.

It's interesting to think about men's response if women began working toward that end. I think women would be dooming themselves to return to Biblical days where they were chattel. If women were to use their freedom in that way, then would men not be justified in revoking that freedom, by force if necessary?? Interesting topic.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2013 10:42:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 3:31:32 PM, wn wrote:
A blog inspired this question, well, I guess because I was quite bored then, and got a little sad when I took a glance at some of its content (the website though wasn't hateful nor depressing in nature).

I'd love to see the blog, but there are thousands like that. I love questions like this, though... because they are the manifestation of a theory's tragedy in its self-fulfillment/logical extension/natural end. Political theory, and all normative theory to a lesser degree, has its meaning in that which it is not -but questions like this one present are, invariably, at the fringe of that ending point. I'm not going to take a stab at feminism because one myopic wannabe doesn't represent an entire school of thought -but I literally laughed when I read this. I actually laughed, at my computer, out loud.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 9:22:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 8:56:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
Do we need blacks anymore?

A sound response.
No we don't need men anymore, but that doesnt mean they are going anywhere.
wn
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 5:39:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Okay, it was through a Tumblr blog, and possibly my hazy knowledge of artificial insemination and bone marrow. I'm not going to provide a link, because I don't have permission to share her blog, and you could Google any example easily.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 6:57:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 5:39:27 PM, wn wrote:
Okay, it was through a Tumblr blog, and possibly my hazy knowledge of artificial insemination and bone marrow. I'm not going to provide a link, because I don't have permission to share her blog, and you could Google any example easily.

Well, if she said what you are saying she said, she is nothing less than a sore blemish on the complexion of feminism.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 8:47:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of course we still need men, for several reasons:

1. IVF is expensive and difficult. Why choose it when sex can do the job for free?

2. Heterosexual women still want sex lives.

3. Unless you're going to kill all men, women still need somebody to protect them from the aggressive ones.

4. Looking after a young child is hard work. It helps to have somebody else bring home the bacon.

5. Do you really want the world to be run exclusively by women? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
wn
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 5:09:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 8:47:23 PM, Jack212 wrote:
Of course we still need men, for several reasons:

1. IVF is expensive and difficult. Why choose it when sex can do the job for free?

2. Heterosexual women still want sex lives.

3. Unless you're going to kill all men, women still need somebody to protect them from the aggressive ones.

4. Looking after a young child is hard work. It helps to have somebody else bring home the bacon.

5. Do you really want the world to be run exclusively by women? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I'm just wondering, if artificial insemination did come easily, could lesbians basically fill the role of men?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 9:34:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ha! Pretty sure the birth rate will have a crashing sharp decline. Would be lucky if the population isn't in a state of crisis after a decade if we fully rely on this method without a feminazi police state.
The sperm conversion looks highly inefficient and is expensive, and no actual testing was reported so we are not sure the sperms would work properly.
Cheshire
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 9:44:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There was a Science Channel episode on whether males are going extinct. It brought up an interesting point concerning the Y chromosome's inability to crossover. That being said, I don't see men disappearing anytime soon, and any genetic inferiority could be changed with genetic engineering. Males may not be needed but neither are females; we would just need to create an artificial womb, which has already been done for sharks.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 4:18:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 9:44:57 AM, Cheshire wrote:
There was a Science Channel episode on whether males are going extinct. It brought up an interesting point concerning the Y chromosome's inability to crossover. That being said, I don't see men disappearing anytime soon, and any genetic inferiority could be changed with genetic engineering. Males may not be needed but neither are females; we would just need to create an artificial womb, which has already been done for sharks.

I can see no valid use for an artificial womb, unless you have beautiful female robots that are life-like, but can't talk. I guess now we have Mutually Assured Destruction in case of a gender war.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 4:26:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 4:18:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/1/2013 9:44:57 AM, Cheshire wrote:
There was a Science Channel episode on whether males are going extinct. It brought up an interesting point concerning the Y chromosome's inability to crossover. That being said, I don't see men disappearing anytime soon, and any genetic inferiority could be changed with genetic engineering. Males may not be needed but neither are females; we would just need to create an artificial womb, which has already been done for sharks.

I can see no valid use for an artificial womb, unless you have beautiful female robots that are life-like, but can't talk. I guess now we have Mutually Assured Destruction in case of a gender war.

Or if a pregnant woman dies and you'd like to try and save the child without any nearby live wombs for use.

But don't sweat the idea, when they have artificial wombs for mammals, then you can START to worry. But sharks are fairly easy.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 4:36:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 4:26:30 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 4:18:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/1/2013 9:44:57 AM, Cheshire wrote:
There was a Science Channel episode on whether males are going extinct. It brought up an interesting point concerning the Y chromosome's inability to crossover. That being said, I don't see men disappearing anytime soon, and any genetic inferiority could be changed with genetic engineering. Males may not be needed but neither are females; we would just need to create an artificial womb, which has already been done for sharks.

I can see no valid use for an artificial womb, unless you have beautiful female robots that are life-like, but can't talk. I guess now we have Mutually Assured Destruction in case of a gender war.

Or if a pregnant woman dies and you'd like to try and save the child without any nearby live wombs for use.

Fair point

But don't sweat the idea, when they have artificial wombs for mammals, then you can START to worry. But sharks are fairly easy.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 4:52:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 5:09:58 AM, wn wrote:
At 8/31/2013 8:47:23 PM, Jack212 wrote:
Of course we still need men, for several reasons:

1. IVF is expensive and difficult. Why choose it when sex can do the job for free?

2. Heterosexual women still want sex lives.

3. Unless you're going to kill all men, women still need somebody to protect them from the aggressive ones.

4. Looking after a young child is hard work. It helps to have somebody else bring home the bacon.

5. Do you really want the world to be run exclusively by women? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I'm just wondering, if artificial insemination did come easily, could lesbians basically fill the role of men?

They could, but why would they? We already have men.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 4:58:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
the only issue is that the resources for artificial insemination only last so long
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 5:09:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 4:58:53 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
the only issue is that the resources for artificial insemination only last so long

Theoretically speaking, you could use a process similar to current cloning methods in order to substitute for sperm. However, evolutionary-wise, that isn't very viable long-term either.

Even basic viral immunity needs recombination.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 5:41:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 5:09:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2013 4:58:53 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
the only issue is that the resources for artificial insemination only last so long

Theoretically speaking, you could use a process similar to current cloning methods in order to substitute for sperm. However, evolutionary-wise, that isn't very viable long-term either.

Even basic viral immunity needs recombination.

exactly.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 1:03:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the person who posted this was liberal, there's also an interesting hidden assumption that results.

Namely, it's fairly well accepted that an important part of people's lives is having a significant other or couple of any sort.

If the question "do we need men anymore" is taken seriously, prima facie we should assume that the need to have a significant other/lover will be taken care of in this all-woman society.

There is only one way to explain how a female-only world would involve people satisfying any need to intimacy or compassion:

The author assumes women can change their sexuality so that straight ones are lesbians.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 11:26:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 3:31:32 PM, wn wrote:
A blog inspired this question, well, I guess because I was quite bored then, and got a little sad when I took a glance at some of its content (the website though wasn't hateful nor depressing in nature).

The blunt answer is of course we do. Lesbians cannot reproduce, so men will be required to some degree. It only becomes an issue to what extent.

If you accept that men are biologically more able than women to defend the nest against aggressors due to lack of pregnancy vulnerability and overall physical superiority, then this line of thinking becomes a valid argument stressing the need for more men. To the extent that aggression is prevalent in the environment will then be the extent that men are more or less necessary.

There is much more flexibility in regards to the necessity of men for procreation. One man can sire dozens of children in a week, whereas a woman has to wait 9 months between each child.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 11:17:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/30/2013 3:31:32 PM, wn wrote:
A blog inspired this question, well, I guess because I was quite bored then, and got a little sad when I took a glance at some of its content (the website though wasn't hateful nor depressing in nature).

I believe men are needed. Although woman are starting to embrace more masculine jobs and characteristics. At the in of the day, men hold atleast half of the keys to life. Although, sperm seems like it'd be a lot harder to replicate than a womens womb.
Quan
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2013 3:14:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Reproductively? Not really. Men have already been effectively removed from the family. Except their financial contribution, of course, because women can't support themselves as much as they like to think they can. Just don't expect a female-only (or even female-dominated) society to sustain itself for very long.
wn
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2013 7:54:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I briefly encountered the Amazonians (Brazil) and the Asgardians (Ukraine). Have their efforts been successful?