[chefranden]

If we got rid of guys we'd probably also get rid of war.

Life without men


Scientists claim to have grown human sperm in a lab, and columnists and bloggers are musing on the possibility of a world where men are no longer needed.

Michael Hanlon in the Daily Mail is not looking forward to the prospect of a world that doesn't need men.

“ But if - and it is still a big if - scientists could one day use cells from female embryos to produce sperm, or perhaps even DNA extracted from an adult's skin or cheek-lining cells, then we truly would be living in a terrifying new era. ”

The Daily Telegraph's Rowan Pelling says men are redundant but worth keeping for menial tasks.

“ Yet I feel compelled - and not just as the mother of two small boys - to make a spirited defence of the weaker sex. Where would I be without my husband to read 80 pages of a car manual, in French, to find out how the back windscreen-wiper works? Who would tug the dried lumps of excrement from our cat's backside? Who would explain the rules of cricket to an American? Who would clear a blocked drain of unspeakable clotted matter? Who would take hours to demonstrate the dreadnought manoeuvres at the Battle of Jutland, armed only with salt cellars and jam jars? Without men, there would be no one to read Joseph Conrad or Norman Mailer, to remove spiders from the bath, or (important one, this) to tell women they're pretty. ”

The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics John Harris says in the Independent that he sees nothing wrong with exercising choice but the real ethical issue isn't about the prospect of a world without men.

“ Women have many ways of trying to do without men. They don't need men - they just need their sperm. Sperm is a notoriously renewable resource and it is plentiful. There is always the turkey baster option for women who want to get pregnant but do not see the need to get a man... The real ethical issue here is that we do not foreclose the beneficial possibilities of research through prejudice or fear. ”

Emily Cook in the Daily Mirror can only think of one useful man and that's scientist Karim Nayernia, who conducted the sperm research:

“ Women have always known that men are a bit of a waste of space … Now British scientists have proved how unnecessary blokes truly are by creating the first human sperm from stem cells. And as if that's not a big enough problem for fellas everywhere, the expert behind this revolutionary move is a man. ”

And Blog Tactic says despite the scientific developments, men should be kept around as play-things.

“ That means men can become redundant in the human productive cycle and the end of male infertility. But for the ladies, I think we should keep a few of them around just for fun. And for those anti-gay, it is an efficient way to cure male homosexuality: abolish men. ”

Karen on the Macleans.ca blog hints at how complex the politics of parenting may become by linking to the UK government's current meanings of mother and father. The definitions are more than 5,000 words long. On the same blog Last Man on Earth says:

“ WE MUST CRUSH THIS! Take away their funding, burn all evidence, delete all records, kidnap and kill those who made the discovery and then bury this entire story under some celebrity scandal. Men can't become irrelevant! ”

In the Culture Watch blog Bill Muehlenberg is concerned the advances may leave men with nothing to do:

“ … what they are really about is the end of man - both as the male gender, and as humanity … A number of problems come to mind, including the obvious: if scientists can now manufacture sperm, that simply makes males even more redundant than they already are. This is really parthenogenesis, or procreation by one sex alone. This might be good for amoebas, but it is not good for human beings, and certainly not good for the children who come about by such a process.

[woodsmoke]

I'm not worried. As long as pickle jars and spiders exist, we're not going anywhere.

[Dhampir]

Redundancy can be a good thing. Read Joe Haldeman's Forever Peace.

[chefranden]

I notice that the ladies haven't said anything. Bad sign?

[R. S. Martin]

woodsmoke, on 10 July 2009 - 12:11 PM, said:

I'm not worried. As long as pickle jars and spiders exist, we're not going anywhere.

Huh??? The ladies in Utah can't open their pickle jars? All you need is a bit of old inner-tube rubber to get a grip on the lid. As for spiders--if that is the biggest hurdle life throws at you...

No, I don't need men for the reasons stated. What I need the men for is the intellectual stimulation. No matter what the books say, I find men to be more likely than women to be intellectual and good at objective debate for its own sake. Or to be interested in the topics that interest me. I'm not quite sure which it is.

No offense to the other women here. On these forums and at the universities I have found some real intellectuals among my own gender, but we are in a strict minority.

[Davka]

I've noticed a strong inclination on the part of many women to prefer a man's naked body in bed to that of another woman. I'm not sure why this is, since I certainly find naked women far more pleasant to cuddle, but there it is. As long as these aberrational philohomos continue to exist, I suspect we otherwise useless men will continue to be kept as pets.

They'll probably try for a breed that actually picks up its own socks and is capable of noticing things like new clothes and changes in hairstyle, but we'll still be more-or-less male. Long live Homo Domesticus!

This post has been edited by Davka: 10 July 2009 - 05:04 PM

[godlessgrrl]

Some random thoughts:

I don't think it likely that either men or women will become useless unless somehow our species evolves out of sexual reproduction into asexual reproduction. As long as we still reproduce sexually, we'll still have some sort of gender differentiation.

I suppose in raw biological terms, our respective sex cells are what nature values. One could say that we don't need men, we just need their sperm; but one could also say we don't really need women, we just need their eggs and uteri. Both cases reduce humans to little more than carriers for sex cells - which may be the case as far as mindless nature goes, but isn't so much the case when it comes to human constructs like societies and relationships. I don't see the people I have relationships as simply walking incubators for sex cells (or future humans), I see them as people I like and want to have around because they're groovy and their presence makes my life more pleasant or bearable.

I'm probably not explaining that terribly well. Oh well.

[Deva]

Men - I like to look at them --and converse with them at a distance like online. That's all. It's nothing personal guys. Good conversation to be had at a distance.

[florduh]

Without men, how would women know they're always right?

[godlessgrrl]

Florduh says: Without men, how would women know they're always right?

The existence of men is not a prerequisite for women knowing we're right. It's simply a reminder.

[white_raven23]

Bedwarmers.

A couple gets into bed....who has the cold hands, feet, and ass? *raises hand*

Seriously, when my BF is not visiting, night-time showers are mandatory to warm me up enough to fall asleep faster than the insomnia can kick in.

I'm sitting here pondering the idea of life without men. Would the majority of women I know become less neurotic? I don't think a day goes by I don't overhear one of my co-workers stressing about appearance, attire, or wondering why He did this, said that, or didn't.

I know at this point, I would not be happy without men, because most other women are nutty. But then a LOT of that nuttiness is because of men...so would that quality I dislike in them go away? Would I be able to find something in these ladies I've written off as superficial crazies, that would actually be worth something? Maybe get to see a REAL and worthwhile side of them for once?

[Davka]

florduh, on 10 July 2009 - 05:51 PM, said:

Without men, how would women know they're always right?

And furthermore, if a man speaks in a forest and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?

[Kathlene]

Ok....I like men. I just haven't had a lot to do with them in an eternity. I find some men unbearable, and also some women. There is no one side is overall bad here. If you look at evolutionary psychology men were needed to obviously help take care of the woman while she had the babies and stuff. Over this last century things have changed a lot. It appears women can have children, raise them, and work and still be self-sufficient. So where does that leave the usefulness of men? I bet men often wonder that themselves. It would be a confusing time for men to have their roles being turned upside down, never knowing now what is expected of them. At the end of the day though, I think men are cool. I want one. Can I put in an order somewhere for the perfect man I want? hehe.

[OpheliaGinger]

Ah, hell no! Sperm is not what I want. I'm too young and straight to sleep with a woman.

This post has been edited by OpheliaGinger: 10 July 2009 - 11:00 PM

[Thurisaz]

I can already see the flak barrels starting to swivel my way for what I'm about to say, but anyway...

...I wonder what the reaction of most people would be if this article had reported the opposite - you know, "Men don't need women anymore, they can now form eggs out of (whatever cell type of a male body)"?

Somehow I suspect the outrage against "those macho pigs" or similar would be deafening.

Not necessarily in here though, I admit. Out there in the rest of the world.

Well okay, now on-topic. Assuming that this really works, I'd say it's a method that raises some serious ethical and genetic questions.

First, in what cases is it okay to apply this method? Lesbian couples wanting an "own child"? I'd say okay (in hopes that a corresponding way for gay couples would be found too... would be a shame if not). An alternative, slightly different way of artificial insemination for those in need of it for whatever reason? Would depend on the specific case I think. Applying the method as "let's get rid of men", at the other end of the scale... sounds damn similar in my ears to "let's get rid of jews/niggers/atheists/whatever other hated group you can think of".

And as for the genetics... what kind of sperm would be produced by this? I admit I didn't really read that article... would the sperm produced here offer the full genetic range that male sperm does? Or could it be that something's missing from it? If so, we may well regret having used the method some day...

[Skeptic]

I wouldn't want to imagine a world without men. Most of my best friends have been guys. Why is this even an issue? What's so horrible about men that some women would want to get rid of them?

[scitsofreaky]

white_raven23, on 10 July 2009 - 06:38 PM, said:

I know at this point, I would not be happy without men, because most other women are nutty. But then a LOT of that nuttiness is because of men...so would that quality I dislike in them go away? Would I be able to find something in these ladies I've written off as superficial crazies, that would actually be worth something? Maybe get to see a REAL and worthwhile side of them for once?

I think that the only reason women get all nutty over men is that we are around. Without men around, women would just be neurotic over other things. Also, as far as how they look, it seems that women care as much (if not more) about what other women think than any man.

So they grew sperm in a lab, so what? There is more to us (humans, that is) than just gametes. We need variety in our interactions, and I think that the gender differences are a good source.

(OT- For any Sci Fi lovers, a great short story relating to the topic of no men is "Houston, Houston, Do You Read" by James Tiptree, Jr.)

[Onyx]

I hate the misandrist reactions to this piece of news. It is not nice how some women are full of ghoulish glee over the prospect of a world without men - even going as far as considering the idea of male slaves and putting on a solution to male homosexuality which puts it in another category of prejudice (homophobia)I do not like that at all!

If the world has to be men-free, let it do it in the natural way, that is, evolution. At least it would be less objectionable by the way of reactions.

The only ethical and least objectionable use of this technology that I can think of are the uses for lesbian and infertile couples' insemination. Apart from that - I can't think of any good reasons for not having men.

Sure, men might be jerks but they are also nice - it is probably a fact that nice and worthwhile men outnumbers jerks. Even so, it is not worth absolishing men on these premises that men are all jerks. That is irrational and prejudiced towards men!

A less objectionable way would be to find the true causes of crime and psychological antipathies (sociopathy, psychopathy, anti-social tendencies and etc) and find a cure for them without violating any ethical standards whatsoever (you've read Clockwork Orange or heard of dictatorships, I hope) and I'm against death penalty because there is a danger of miscarrying justice, possible violation of anti-cruelty laws, unintended effects and the fiscal costs involved in fighting convictions.

The gender is not the real problem, it is the personality and actions of the person that makes him or her a persona non grata within society. When you realise that, then misandry or any anger towards men falls on its own sword. That also goes for misogyny or any anger towards women.

These are my views on this technology's ramifications.

[OpheliaGinger]

We do put too much emphasis on what reproductive organ someone is carrying. I deal with animals and I find that it is hard to distinguish which is male and which is female just by personality alone; I try to apply that same "blindness" to humans.

[SilentLoner]

Skeptic, on 11 July 2009 - 12:14 AM, said:

I wouldn't want to imagine a world without men. Most of my best friends have been guys. Why is this even an issue? What's so horrible about men that some women would want to get rid of them?

^agree

I have no idea why people think a world without men would be a peaceful one. Women are peaceful my ass. In my experience women are more vicious and underhanded when crossed.

And on the experiment conducted, it seems like a waste of time. The world's population is going out of whack as it is, ways to get more people on the planet is the last thing we need. They could be working on fail-proof birth control for crying out loud.