The result, was called "George".
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 ...
Do they think a woman invented the machinery behind that?
Do they think a woman invented the science behind that?
Do they think that a virus won't just love a batch of identical people?
Wasn't Huxley's Brave New World something akin to that?
I would hate a world without real men. Love my husband, love little boys. The world has gone mad!
“Men, Who Needs Them?”
ummm..... I do....
Yes, and just look at the problems this has caused in our society.
Hah. Without men to defend them, they would be getting raped by other men. Move to Islamic countries, and see how that works.
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”
The result, was called "George".
Hmmm, that’s a backhanded defense of men, if I ever heard one.
An amazing amount of self-hate, even by Liberal standards.
Science is getting real close to artificial wombs so much so that even men will be bale to carry babies.
read this article. Next 20-25 years is going to be interesting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/17/sex-reproduction-aarathi-prasad
There is, actually, quite a bit more to human survival than this if one insists on including culture, which is, at its core, simply another ploy in the natural selection game. Here the value of the male is what he brings to the game in his normal areas of specialization of defense, construction, and beer-drinking. It is not to say that females cannot fill that function; it is to say that incorporating specialists tends to stretch the corpus of cultural survival ploys. Moreover, can we say that a culture in which nobody lights farts with a Zippo or a .45 is a culture worth living in? I thought not.
“Brave New World” was more a situation where people where genetically engineered to fit into certain ranks of society, thereby harmonizing said society.
Well, along with drugs like soma, and the occasional orgies.
Yeah, I would imagine a batch of literally genetically-identical people would indeed be quite the smorgasbord for a hungry virus.
I do imagine that one of these days, someone somewhere will get around to cloning to a human. Or building a Replicant.
Ten to one it’ll be the Japanese. They seem to be into that whole transhumanism thing.
We are not asexual but it is definitely possible for two females to reproduce by using genetic engineering and the offspring will always be female (no Y chromosomes). Basically, the genes from one egg would be taken and either implanted into a sperm or directly used to fertilize the other egg. It has been accomplished in test animals so THEORETICALLY we could have an all-female world.
OTOH, we aren't too far from artificial wombs and surrogate mothers are fairly popular. With genetic engineering, two men can have offspring. However, half of those offspring would be female since all men carry one X chromosome. With screening, selective abortion, etc it is THEORETICALLY also possible to have a world of only men.
The world will definitely be a very different place within a few decades. I believe it will be a better place and the above will never happen, despite what doom & gloomers say.
LOL, what an absurd article this is coinsidering it is men who are responsible entirely for everything we see going on in the world today.......oh wait....
Uuum no...women are starting to earn all the technical degrees also. 85% of the people in my sisters veterinarian class are women.
The New York Times, Who Needs Them?
Affirmative action.
She should be so proud.
A woman I work with has been crying for 4 weeks straight-her bf broke up with her.. We males are not obsolete yet.
Agree with all of what you said!
Thanks for the link; I’m going to have to get myself a copy of that book.....sounds like some interesting reading.
What she describes is really the ultimate game-changer as far as humanity is concerned.
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.