NY Times: Men, Who Needs Them?

Started by mens_issues, Aug 25, 2012, 12:40 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down


This kind of garbage is why I don't subscribe to any newspapers:

Men's Issues Online - a voice for men's advocacy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MensIssuesOnline

Follow Male Positive Media on Twitter - https://twitter.com/MalePositive


It's ironic that I just found out that the first man to walk on the moon died today, then just after that I see this misandristic hateful diatriabe against men in the NY Times.  I have utter contempt for these journalists for writing this kind of junk.
Men's Issues Online - a voice for men's advocacy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MensIssuesOnline

Follow Male Positive Media on Twitter - https://twitter.com/MalePositive

Captain Courageous

Aug 25, 2012, 02:42 PM Last Edit: Aug 25, 2012, 02:45 PM by Captain Courageous
Who in hell needs, or has ever needed, the NY Times?

It is headed for obsolescence faster than we are ... believe it!

[There they go again, those "depopulation" fanatics!]

Captain Courageous

BTW, will there be comments, I hope?

Lots of references to misandry, sexism and androphobia? :MRm3:


1) Homo means "a human being" in Latin.

2) According to Merriam-Webster, the first use was in 1591.

3) "Fortunately, the data for children raised by only females is encouraging. As the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan has shown, poverty is what hurts children, not the number or gender of parents." -- according to Charles Murray's "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010" (which I did not read yet, just bits & pieces), only 5% of children are born to single mothers among college educated women, yet it is 40% among women with high school education (both values are for whites). Obviously there's an earning/income disparity between the two groups (on average); if "poverty is what hurts children", then this trend is moving exactly the wrong direction.

4) I can't imagine how can he, as a geneticist, personify the egg ("you") based purely on the difference of mass between it and the nuclear genetic material carried by the sperm ("just an infinitesimally small packet of DNA, less than one-millionth of your mass", "father's 3.3 picograms of DNA"). An egg is like a computer with half of its "preloaded" software missing: looks like a computer, weighs like a computer... and utterly useless as a computer.

5) Then comes the nod toward himself and his father, then a generic statement about fathers being a great benefit, followed by a non sequitur.

6) "With human cloning technology just around the corner and enough frozen sperm in the world to already populate many generations" -- cloning doesn't provide genetic variety: it is essentially non-sexual reproduction with all what that entails (only random mutations can drive evolution which provides magnitudes less ability to adapt than sexual reproduction). If frozen sperm is used, that's artificial insemination, not cloning; and upon what criteria does she select which sperm to use for the offspring? If photos/videos/health info, wouldn't every woman try to have an offspring by a few "alpha" donors? Or is there going to be a sperm lottery? How about the male offspring? Or will be all sperm individually checked and discarded if contains the "unneeded" Y chromosome?

7) "Meanwhile women live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense." -- would this stay that way if men disappeared? Obviously there wouldn't be comparison to "unneeded" and as such nonexistent men, but these measurements could deteriorate compared to their current values (especially violence: although overt sexual competition wouldn't be an issue, but competition for all other resources would remain and fall entirely on "the gentler sex").

Apart from these, a puff piece with low-grade wit.
The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical


Good points, Neoteny.

I'd also add that if men disappeared, then some women would take on the roles of men and you might just have something similar to today.
Men's Issues Online - a voice for men's advocacy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MensIssuesOnline

Follow Male Positive Media on Twitter - https://twitter.com/MalePositive


The dude gets destroyed in the comments section...
Evolution doesn't stop at the neck.

Captain Courageous

Aug 25, 2012, 11:07 PM Last Edit: Aug 25, 2012, 11:11 PM by Captain Courageous
Good responses here:

"Presumably at some point in the future artificial wombs will be developed making both men and women irrelevant to procreation. What then?

Hampikian reduces a serious and complex subject to a very limited and strictly biological position to make a case that since men don't have much to do with procreation they're irrelevant to children's lives and can be dispensed with. This is a gross oversimplification of reality but I'm sure it plays well in certain quarters."

"MaxChicagoNYT..There is a deep evolutionary reason in the separation of sexes. Evolution proceeds by genetic mutations. If a DNA was just copied from the mother to the offspring, first there would be little mutations - little possible progress towards a more efficient being, second, a genetic error would be passed on. Mixing DNA allows large changes in the DNA - fast evolutionary progress, and allows blocking of the 'bad' sections by good one from a spouse."


dr e

Excellent post neoteny.

What a self flagellating white knight.   A very dumb one at that. 

The research is very clear that the absence of father's from the home has a huge impact and that single mother homes create trouble.  Ignoring that data by comparing it to a completely different aspect is simply shifting the ground.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Cordell Walker

well, to answer the question posed---------when the Ptomekin village of modern american society falls apart, women and children are gonna need the hell out of  men...................when the dollar  becomes like the weimer republic currency and it takes a wheelbarrow full to buy a loaf of Mrs Bairds, and obama has ATF agents goin door to door putting people in camps..........a lot of these broads talkin that hot shit are gonna wish they had some of us  nut scratchin pabst swilling apes on their side.
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

Iron John

Who needs men?  How about the NY Times?  Is it women hauling around tons of their worthless newspaper each day?  How would their deliveries go with only women to do it?


man..these witches are coming out like crazy from all directions as of late. It's all about this election I believe.

Go Up