WRITING in The New York Times, a professor of biology at Boise State University says that the world could survive just fine without men as long as enough sperm was frozen to keep the species alive. Greg Hampikian looks around him — at a physical and intellectual infrastructure erected almost entirely by men —  and says it all comes down to gestation and breastfeeding. He himself is unnecessary (even though he was a stay-at-home dad for an entire year.)

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.

A society that indulges idiocy of this magnitude is soon to be conquered by a society that doesn’t.

—— Comments —-

Fred Owens writes:

All men, consciously or not, realize that we are not biologically necessary. It only takes one rooster to keep the flock going. And you know what happens to the surplus male calves on a farm — yikes!

But there is something called civilization that we devised to overcome this injustice. In fact, that might be our defining quality as human beings.

Kevin M. writes:

A society that indulges idiocy of this magnitude is soon to be conquered by a society that doesn’t.

Pulitzer. Right there.

Whenever I encounter a fembot going off on the “End of Men” attitude, I usually inform her that, no, the future is not female. It is most certainly male, and his name is Abdullah. The feminists are playing straight into the hands of the world’s most virulent misogynists (who enjoy a birthrate that would humiliate a colony of rabbits). Ours? Not so much.

Hannon writes:

When I see an article like this one, penned by a man, I immediately associate his ideas primarily with guilt. Are modern men supposed to feel guilty for centuries or millennia of dominating women? Of subjecting them to rape and incidental or calculated insemination– isn’t that what our man in Boise is really saying? The idea of “men aren’t necessary” is driven by pathological self-loathing, not the consideration of any biological improvement.

From a guilt perspective it doesn’t really add up, though. Dominant males have always been able to secure the most desirable women in their time; this defines their dominant status. Secondary men (without getting into alpha, beta, omega, etc.) play second fiddle to this first group and may have been considered lucky to find a good wife. All through these arrangements there were difficulties and heartbreaks, and moments doubt for all comers. Obviously there were losers, male and female, as well. Notions of “equality” cannot solve these ancient and persistent issues.

So where is the guilt in all of this? It is fabricated by modern liberals, who cannot stand to think of that which looms out of the past to threaten their progress.

Forta Leza writes:

I believe it’s helpful to think of modern professors as similar to medieval court astrologers from 500 years ago. For a court astrologer, his main priority is to please the king so that he can continue to receive room and board. Modern professors need funding, and they know (consciously or subconciously) that spewing out this kind of nonsense will ingratiate them with the politicians who can make their careers a lot smoother and more successful.

Please follow and like us: