Post: #1

The latest from the NYT op-ed pages:

"...With expanding reproductive choices, we can expect to see more women choose to reproduce without men entirely... 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...

...If a woman wants to have a baby without a man, she just needs to secure sperm (fresh or frozen) from a donor (living or dead). The only technology the self-impregnating woman needs is a straw or turkey baster, and the basic technique hasn’t changed much since Talmudic scholars debated the religious implications of insemination without sex in the fifth century. If all the men on earth died tonight, the species could continue on frozen sperm. If the women disappear, it’s extinction.

Ultimately the question is, does “mankind” really need men? With human cloning technology just around the corner and enough frozen sperm in the world to already populate many generations, perhaps we should perform a cost-benefit analysis.

It’s true that men have traditionally been the breadwinners. But women have been a majority of college graduates since the 1980s, and their numbers are growing. It’s also true that men have, on average, a bit more muscle mass than women. But in the age of ubiquitous weapons, the one with the better firepower (and knowledge of the law) triumphs.

Meanwhile women live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense. If men were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often? "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinio...-them.html

Post: #2

..Troll?
Regardless, if men weren't around, the world would burn itself to the ground within a week.

Post: #3

The article was so stupid, sexist and hateful (not to mention being based on false data - notice the bullshit about children raised by single mothers, which is contradicted by just about every study in the world) that even I had been astounded upon reading it. It's just... wow, mind-bogglingly stupid, and to see it in a mainstream, popular newspaper, is just.... very troubling. Have we gotten to the point that calling for extermination of male gender is just another day in USA?

I wrote the following to [email protected]:

HCE Wrote:I just wanted to say that sexist, bigoted and incredibly insulting articles (not to mention being based on false facts) like "Men, Who Needs Them?" by Greg Hampikian are the reason why I have dropped the subscription to your newspaper. I am disappointed to encounter such a low quality of journalism in IHT.

I won't be around to wait for you to publish an article titled "Blacks, Who Needs Them?" or something similar. You should be ashamed.

Have a good day.

p.s.

article Wrote:Ultimately the question is, does “mankind” really need men?

Imagine asking this question about women, gypsies, jews, muslims, christians, rockers, firefighters or whatever racial, cultural or other group you can think of. You'd be massacred.

Post: #4

I'm betting Greg Hampikian is not a ladies man.

And he doesn't really have any male friends either.

Post: #5

(08-25-2012 08:38 AM)Architekt Wrote:  ..Troll?

Troll? No, just sharing what kind of nazi shit respected (liberal) mainstream media out there chooses to present about us.

Post: #6

a very one-dimensional (troll) article only focusing on biology.
i predict a society with both genders will always outperform any single/gender androgynous society. Sexuality is the base of many species success including mankind. Validated by evolution.

a) the author should be a role model and choose to not reproduce
b) being a professor and producing such a text. wtf
c) link/spread this article widely, so that he cant cover up that article

Post: #7

Hilarious. If men took a week off the world would grind to a halt. They'd be begging us to come back as soon as the power went out. Unfortunately it sounds like they want to liquidate all men first and see what happens. This is the kind of playtime scenario ten year olds dream up.

Post: #8

I'm in the middle of Iowa right now, and I've been to a couple farms. Who ran these farms? Men.

Let's be serious here. Women do not have the skills or talent to be masters of industry. The "necessary and sufficient for reproduction" is both their greatest strength and weakness.

And realistically, they would only change who is dominant over them, versus being independent. The same warrior classes would develop from High-T women.

edit: And men not being needed is our greatest strength and weakness. Men know we have to be better, work harder, make more money, etc. Because if we don't, we're overlooked. The woman's situation is the exact opposite.

Post: #9

+ female - reproduction
+ male - competition
-----------------------
= world dominating species

Post: #10

Yeah, this article is so stupid that it sounded like a troll job, and a crude one at that. I'm surprised the NYT published it.

For one, single mother families are considered very gauche among the upper classes, eg http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/fashio...wanted=all

I'd love to see an all female military go up against an all male military... I'll let Hamipikian lead the charge for the female troops...

Funny, Asians commit less crime and do better in school than whites, Hispanics and blacks. Where are all the feminists demanding the annihilation of everyone but Asians? Come on now.

Post: #11

this dude greg is asking for it tho



Greg Hampikian is a professor of biology and criminal justice at Boise State University and the director of the Idaho Innocence Project.

Post: #12

Yeah, who neeeds them?

Post: #13

What is civilization ? What is society ? whether tribe, clan, or nation ?

essentially, its 1% elite men who hoard 95 % the resources (women are resources - for sex and reproduction) and try to suppress the other 99% of male competition - only men fight and warriors.

So, in a society where technology allows all resources to be controlled and regimented by the 1%, why even waste energy trying to suppress the 99% of men - just eliminate them through eugenics - and social engineering.

-create more homos, asexuals, and low T betas ......to do drone work.
-eliminate real men

results in two things: 1 % control all the resources without threat of competition and all the pussy. After all this is all women really are: pussy and wombs.

Feminism is mostly a tactic by elite men to marginalize and weaken the 99% of men so that they can monopolize economic resources and pussy.

Women are at all times - tools and spoils - of the great game. Thats whyI always laugh when they start to talk about their "careers".

So, due to technology, the Future does not need men.

Only a tiny male elite, some asexual (think eunics) drones, and a mess of females for sex. (women wont even be needed for reproduction soon).

Post: #14

Top rated comment:

Quote:When I decided to have a child with anonymous donor sperm, several men I knew were disturbed that it could be done, and I realized then there was a fear that they could become non-essential.

Yeah, that's it.

Post: #15

Pride always goes before the fall. In this, we see the result of feminists and their strongest white knight backers (the author of this article, speaking basically as a male feminist) getting a little too cocky and biting the hand that feeds them and throwing stones from a glass house. They need to ask themselves a few questions:

1. Who built the advanced western society you live in? And when I say "built", I mean crafting the laws and actually physically establishing it as a polity with all of the freedoms and liberties you now take for granted? Who is it that has stood and still stands between you and that violent developing world you see on TV? (where the women aren't allowed to drive, real rape culture is the norm and children die at rapid rates)?

2. Who keeps the society you live in going? Who puts up and maintains the buildings you walk in and out of, the big suburban homes you fantasize about, the roads you (incompetently) drive on? Who keeps the power on and the (clean) water flowing? Who is responsible for getting all of that fresh seafood to the table in that fancy urban restaurant you consider yourself so special for being able to frequent every week, or for farming the contents of your latest vegan diets?

And those clothes you wear (and spend exorbitant amounts of money on), who is responsible for getting them to you? I mean, we might as well go all out: who is largely responsible for developing and expanding the textile industry in the first place?

3. Who crafted the laws that allow you to enjoy the liberties that are denied to the vast majority of women on Earth? Who wrote, sponsored, and actually made legal the likes of Title IX and other laws designed to mandate equality between the sexes and bring you up to the level you enjoy today?

4. Who enforces these laws, and ensures that the liberties and freedoms you take for granted aren't ripped from you by physical force?

5. Who protects you and your children? Aside from law enforcement, who does most of the heavy lifting when it comes to saving the free world or launching some sort of operation in a distant, undesirable part of the planet all for the sake of protecting the economic interests of your country so you can enjoy the cheap consumer products and reality TV you seem so desperate for?

6. Who actually makes everything? Who develops the Facebook, Instagram, Myspace and Twitter that you spend all day gossiping, attention-whoring, and otherwise bullshitting on? Who creates the youtube for you to show off your twerk videos and share your latest views on how useless you think men are? Who develops the film technology (cameras, 3D, etc) you use to get on TV (also a male invention) or the big screen (once again, male invention) and go on and on about how independent you are?

Hell, who creates, updates and maintains the internet you use so much?

7. You complain about aggressive, risk-taking, and sometimes violent men being an issue. Tell me, who is it that made these men so reproductively valuable? Who is it that men are trying to impress by acquiring more wealth at any cost, or subjugating the next guy/nation, making decisive, difficult decisions, or taking the undue risk and being the often disagreeable go-getter? Who is it that rewards the men who are most successful in these endeavours by giving them the enhanced chance of siring progeny?

The bottomline is this: Like children, these people see a limited picture and draw a full conclusion. In this limited picture, they run shit: they're more educated than men, they can reproduce without marrying/dating a man, and are even beginning to out-earn men.

Their problem? If you broaden the scope to see the full picture, you'll realize that they only enjoy these privileges and advantages because of men. Every progressive little step they take exists at the pleasure of men who craft these pro-feminist/equality laws and statuses, enforce said laws, and fight to ensure that nobody else infringes upon said laws/principles and sends these women back to stone age gender relations (which persist in nearly every non-western nation). Every little privilege they get to enjoy as a result of this (dominance in higher education, increasing dominance in professional fields, increasingly higher incomes) is also provided at the pleasure of men, who make sure that all the little tools they take for granted (electricity, the internet, roadways, clubs, etc) are there and ready for use.

Like children, they see the end result and assume that is all there is. Their minds are too limited to see what goes into providing all of that, and they instead attack those responsible for said provision. This will be their downfall. They are too proud and too stupid for their own good, and will only learn the hard way as children often do.

Post: #16

Quote: When I explained this to a female colleague and asked her if she thought that there was yet anything irreplaceable about men, she answered, “They’re entertaining.”

Gentlemen, let’s hope that’s enough.

Post: #17

Athlone on point once again.

Question your professors, boys. They're not always right.

What's in it for this mangina? What does he expect the man to do if he wants us to realize that we're "not needed" in the world?

I love the part where he pulls out a questionable study by a female Ivy Leaguer out of his ass without linking to it. Poverty hurts kids? I've taught both rich and poor kids who have problems performing academically and socially. Guess what, most of these kids came from single-parent households---mostly single-moms btw.

A single parent that works a lot or is a degenerate just like the absent parent doesn't have enough time for the kid which is recipe for disaster. I become these kids' father figure by giving them structure so they can function in the world so they don't become degenerates like their fucked up parents. If I may brag a little: I stabilize society with my actions.

Two words, Hampikian: fuck you.

Post: #18

The implication of that article is that men aren't good for another other than being a sperm donor.

Under that logic, men who claim women aren't good for anything but a cum receptacle aren't misogynists. We're instead biologists worthy of the New York Times.

Post: #19

(08-26-2012 09:24 PM)Enfant_Terrible Wrote:  What's in it for this mangina?

Mangina's think that if they support this bullshit, their chances of getting laid will increase.

Post: #20

(08-27-2012 02:04 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(08-26-2012 09:24 PM)Enfant_Terrible Wrote:  What's in it for this mangina?

Mangina's think that if they support this bullshit, their chances of getting laid will increase.

See, being printed in the New York Times does increase your chances of being laid.


The problem with white knighting is that many white knights are rewarded with sex. I'd say it's probably no more than 1 out of 1000 white knights, but it happens often enough that most men are trained to be subservient.

It's the same principle with training a dog. Every time a dog rolls over, you give him a treat. Then teach him to roll over to earn a treat. Then get the dog to roll over on command, even without any treats.

Likewise, men are so eager for the reward they will white knight even if they are rewarded so infrequently even the most retarded of women can see what a tool white knights are.