Posted on 08/29/2012 11:23:17 AM PDT by nickcarraway
MAMMALS are named after their defining characteristic, the glands capable of sustaining a life for years after birth — glands that are functional only in the female. And yet while the term “mammal” is based on an objective analysis of shared traits, the genus name for human beings, Homo, reflects an 18th-century masculine bias in science.
That bias, however, is becoming harder to sustain, as men become less relevant to both reproduction and parenting. Women aren’t just becoming men’s equals. It’s increasingly clear that “mankind” itself is a gross misnomer: an uninterrupted, intimate and essential maternal connection defines our species.
The central behaviors of mammals revolve around how we bear and raise our young, and humans are the parenting champions of the class. In the United States, for nearly 20 percent of our life span we are considered the legal responsibility of our parents.
With expanding reproductive choices, we can expect to see more women choose to reproduce without men entirely. 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.
That’s good, since women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither. From the production of the first cell (egg) to the development of the fetus and the birth and breast-feeding of the child, fathers can be absent. They can be at work, at home, in prison or at war, living or dead.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This guy is a true romantic.
I suppose the sperm comes from .... goats?
That should be left for only democrats to answer.
I know this professor well enough to ignore this article. Everyone in his lab is giggling about this piece. Don’t take it seriously. He just likes being ‘thought-provoking’ and a little crazy. I’m sure he’s giggling at the reactions he’s gotten too.
Yeah, those degrees in Mesopotamian culture and LGBT studies are very lucrative.
It takes two to tango there Greg, no matter how much you try to deny it. Asexual reproduction is not in the cards for mammals, no matter how much you want it to be so.
Just because the NYT gets along without any...
What can you do with a society this profoundly stupid? Blow the whole damn thing up and start over, is about all.
He's entitled to his own opinion, not his own facts.
Actually, with mononuclear reproduction (cloning), sperm is technically not necessary.
A woman could have a clone made of herself, and essentially give birth to herself. No men needed (well, maybe lab techs, etc).
If they clone a high-cell organism such as a sheep, they can clone a human being. No one is quite willing to do.
Not yet, at least.
Gender? If you use that word, maybe you are one of them. What’s wrong with the make sex?
When humanity drank Hugh Hefner’s kool-aid, we all sank to a lower level of evolution (so to speak), in that we rejected God and all the civilizing aspects of the Ten Commandments, the New Testament, and the inherent value of all people.
Western civilization arose from a Judeo-Christian perspective. When we reject it, our marriages are devalued, pregnancy becomes a nuisance and a disease, children are nothing by bothersome, etc., and babies can be killed for any reason whatsoever. All logic goes out the door (and out of our minds). Women succomb to all sorts of dumb premises like a “War against Women” when actually respect for women has tanked because of the same liberal policies that are decrying said phony war.
Just my two cents worth.
Who needs men when we have a penis-wielding Sandra Fluke? I doubt she’d do very well against a Chinese soldier, however.
What can you do with a society this profoundly stupid? Blow the whole damn thing up and start over, is about all.
(dang, HTML tag fail on the previous post, sorry).
Reminds me of a scene from “Legally Blond”.
Something about the definition of “semester”.
Neither are women in that scenario.
Liberals believe most Americans are like farm animals. They believe Americans are simple beasts of burden meant to work their entire lives and have what they earn taken from them by a tiny elite using the force of government.
In this scenario men are unnecessary except for their labor and increasingly that is unnecessary. Women are more compliant and submissive. They are more easily controlled.
The only thing protecting Americans from a life of unimaginable misery and suffering is their willingness to fight for their faith and their families. The elites are already destroying religion and spirituality. If they can destroy the family they will have accomplished their goal.
Touché.
Thus far, however, no one has yet figured how to bring a human to fruition outside of the womb. So, a woman would still be needed for that part of the whole scenario.
I’m sure, one of these days scientists will figure it out, a la Brave New World and “decanting”.
Or the Replicants from “Bladerunner” (you know, I’ve never really figured out whether they’re actually machines, bio-machine, genetically engineered humans, clones, or all of the above - they remind me of the “Robots” from Capek’s “RUR”).
Cloning. Interesting. I think Hampikian should clone himself, and then go (balance of post self-deleted to save the AdminModerator the trouble).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.