Men: Who Needs Them? We Do, You Idiot.
A commenter pointed out this NYT‘s piece entitled “Men, Who Needs Them?” which, of course is written by some Uncle Tim man by the name of Greg Hampikian:
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. …
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?
Is this a serious article? What kind of misandrist pens this type of sexism? Common to the NYTs, sure, but his dismissal of men and suck-up-ness (no, it’s not a word, I made it up) to women and his audience is pretty clear. What is his malignant purpose?
I dated a feminist man for several years. It turns out I need HIM like a fish needs a bicycle, I traded him in for a real man, never looked back, never a regret, and many thanks to God for the departure.
Had a good laugh when i realized it wasn’t theonion.com. When a once newspaper of record can’t be distinguished from The Onion, it’s about to be listed on newspaperdeathwatch.com.
Expect more of this stuff in the runup to the elections, and store it for later embarassment for the writer.
Shyne
If a man does something and there isn’t a woman present, is it still wrong?
Waht is really a problem is that “misandrsit” isn’t a word, or at least you never hear it.
Sorry, “misandrist”.
If ever a guy was begging for a woman … it’s this poor slob.
Replace “Man” in this article with “Jew” and see how “funny” it is. NYT is apparently the US rag for genocidal, Nazi wanabes.
Forgive my presumption, Dr. Helen, but I think the word you’re looking for in your penultimate sentence is “sycophancy.” Moving on, THANK YOU for speaking up for half the human race, and for helping to fortify us against the burgeoning insanity of our new, self-selected gentry class. (By “us,” I mean women who still love and seek men, not autocastrati. That’s not a word either; I made it up!)
As for Mr. or rather Miss Greg Hampikian’s purpose, I think it’s related to Rush Limbaugh’s thesis that feminism allows unattractive (for any reason) women access to the mainstream of society. Feminism, in its aspect of denigrating traditionally masculine men, allows weak men access to the mainstream of society. How’d I do?
Funny, when a woman chooses to kill her baby, she doesn’t need a man. But let her choose to keep that child and suddenly the government finds a real use for men, cash cow.
I suppose they could put men in a glass case with a sign, “In case of disaster, break glass”
With Katrina back in thoughts, let’s review. When everything is wiped out, men become very important. They have the power when the power equipment isn’t working. They have the endurance when muscle power is all that is left. The women weren’t sitting around helpless but when the infrastructure is torn all to hell, when the repair”person” isn’t available, when the electricity doesn’t flow, turns out it’s a bit tough to watch and care for the kids while rebuilding, well, everything.
We have built a world where men are supposedly superfluous, if you ignore all those who work out of sight and obviously out of mind. We live in a world where emergency assistance is a phone call away. But that world is fragile and when entropy comes, men become valuable, physically, mentally and for the very reason, they don’t have the limitations imposed by fetus development, labor or breast feeding. Because historically, you’d be leaving a lot to random chance if you didn’t have someone to stand post while life imposed its disabilities, temporary though they may be, upon mothers.
i suppose the title should be: Liberal, metrosexual men, who needs them?
Women depend on the government for their jobs. All these little non-profit rackets and government payrolls not too mention welfare doles are filled with women. Without it, they starve. 16 trillion tells me they will. They are a burden.
When 86 girls end up pregnant at one high school, who’s going to take care of them and their kids? You know they’re going to go for assistance of some kind. And exactly what chances do they or their kids have of succeeding? Not a lot.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/01/14/teens-pregnant-menphis-high-school/
Uncontrolled women are a burden to society. Period. They not only are bringing it down, but will be the one’s who pay for it in the end. It’s just a shame they don’t see it.
We definitely do not need pitiful male femifascists like Hampikian.
I guess the “political and cultural progressivism” cited by Arthur Brisbane only frowns upon selected bigotries.
Let’s rewrite the money quote for race rather than gender:
“White people live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense. If blacks were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?”
Who thinks such a formulation would enjoy scarce op-ed space in the Times?
http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/08/bigotry-at-new-york-times.html
As an aside, Hampikian is employed by Boise State University. I wonder how they would feel about a letter writing campaign asking whether they agree that males are no longer necessary?
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/yuvpk/activism_opportunity_tell_mr_hampikian_and_boise/
The link above suggests a letter-writing campaign to Boise State University. It includes relevant contact info and suggestions for content.
Hampikian’s weak on basic science too.
He puts new meaning on the “egg” in egghead.
He probably has tenure.
“He probably has tenure.”
Would that protect a Professor who wrote an article titled, “Women, who needs them?”
I suspect the motive behind this article is to pander to the growing number of single mothers who largely vote Democrat and favor government subsidies. I wouldn’t call it sycophancy, although that is good word for it. I would call it obsequiousness, which is a fancy way of saying suck-up-ness.
Everyone is blaming this man child (read idiot) for pandering to and elevating single mothers, and perhaps rightfully so. But, hey, this guy is a New York Times journalist; he’s just doing his job, which is to motivate the base of his party and excuse them for making poor life choices. The real problem here is with women themselves.
It used to be that women frowned on single motherhood. You won’t find a Suffragette who would have supported single motherhood or abortion on demand for that matter. Today, you won’t find a Feminist who doesn’t.
That’s the real difference. The Suffragettes argued for equal rights, equal education, equal opportunity, equal employment, and equal pay. Those women had legitimate complaints, and won what they were protesting for. But they still respected and did not disregard men. They just wanted equality.
Feminists argue for superiority in all things. They demean, insult and disregard men as useless. It’s a pathological form of misandry. The men, and I use that term loosely to refer to their sex only, who support and embolden these women, and I use that term loosely to refer to their sex only, are not just sychophants or obsequients (I made that word up!); they’re ignorant.
What separates humans from the vast majority of the animal kingdom is fatherhood. Only the worst kind of fool would deny that.
Men built civilization; women merely live in it. Men protect and defend civilization; women merely benefit from it. Men wrote the laws; women merely use them to their advantage.
Feminists can continue on their path of mutually insured destruction, for them and their male suck-ups. And when civilization turns to shit, men, real men, will clean up the mess.
Actually, men could start that now by rewriting the laws, particularly marriage law.
Couldn’t get the avator to paste in from Word but below a profile of a stripper on a pole it says: I support single moms – one dollar at a time.
“Single mothers”?
C’mon don’t be afraid to call ‘em what they are: unwed mothers.
I consider feminists to be an actual threat to society. That’s why I won’t defend or help one when the time comes. Cruel? Yes, but You just can’t help a sworn enemy. Feminists aren’t women, and don’t deserve to be treated that well. So, for instance, if a bunch of women were pinned down by a sniper, I would have to really think about who I would help. Same goes for other types of violent activities, I won’t get shot up for a feminist. There are a lot of men who feel this way nowadays, and it really is a sign of a sick society, isn’t it? As time goes by, you’ll begin to hear of a growing reluctance to help women. Darwinian, isn’t it? I have seen some feminists who were so offensive that it’s a wonder anyone would help them. Gonna be a real bitter harvest, isn’t it?
I think that Professor Hampikian should put this to a test. Put a hundred thousand women on an island. Prohibit them from getting any help from men. See how long they last.
The things that everybody takes for granted that allow us to live as civilized human beings are done almost exclusively by men. When your toilet floods the bathroom floor and you call a plumber, it isn’t a woman who comes to fix it. When your furnace stops working and the temperature outside is five degrees Fahrenheit, it isn’t a woman who comes to fix it. The gasoline that powers your car was refined by men, in refineries designed by men, from petroleum extracted by men. The shingles on my roof were installed by two men. The siding on my house was installed by men. The paint on the siding was applied by men (including me).
Take men away and there is no civilization.
Actually, back in Ancient Greece, something like this really did happen. Women set up an all female city. They were protesting something or other. Men were not allowed.
It only lasted a few years before it inevitably crumbled.
Also, there is a play by Aristophanes titled Lysistrata in which the heroine organizes a sex boycot until the men make peace in the Peloponnesian war. It only exacerbated the war between the sexes.
So none of this is anything new. It’s been going on for thousands of years.
LYSISTRATA:
There are a lot of things about us women
That sadden me, considering how men
See us as rascals.
CALONICE:
As indeed we are!
How much us an egg worth?
About $5,000 it seems.
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/04/how-much-are-a-womans-eggs-worth/
The collapse begins when someone begins to think of themselves a irreplaceable.
Buy an Egg ($5k). Hire a Surrogate ($26k to $50k). Then raise the child in a single-father household.
Given the risks of 18 years of child support that may not be used to support the child, constant custody battles, what’s the prudent, least expensive option?
If you want to champion that one sex is irreplaceable, don’t howl when it comes right back at you.
The NYTimes author must be delusional. I was surprised to see that he lives in Boise, Idaho, which tends to be a more manly place. Perhaps he was picked on a lot for being a wimp as a child and he wants to get back at manly society. On the other hand, I just noticed he works at Boise State University. The universities, even in places like Boise, tend to be locales of delusion.
The pattern for kids raised by single mothers is quite predictable. The daughters become sluts and the sons become thugs. I have seen this pattern far too often and more times than I can remember. The reason is that children of both sexes require father figures during adolescence. Single mothers simply cannot raise adolescents.
Its fathers who teach sons to be strong and manly, but at the same time respectful of others, particularly women. Its fathers who also teach their daughters to keep their legs crossed.
This NYTimes writer is clearly delusional.
Maybe he’s a transplant to Idaho. http://biology.boisestate.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty/greg-hampikian/
Can you imagine the storm that would be whipped up had the article been, “Women, who needs them?” The amount of misandry in this culture is amazing. No one even notices it. It is taken for granted. It is socially acceptable.
BTW: Did you check out the “art” that accompanied the article? It appears to me to be a Y Chromosome fashioned out of turds. It is laying in the gutter along with a banana peel, used Q-Tip, apple core, and other refuse. Again, imagine similar imagery applied to women.
Literally heads would roll and there would have to be promises of new spending for some committee or center to spread understanding of women’s issues.
And a link to the image a previous commenter tried to post.
http://www.irononpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/0009-funny-beer-drinking-t-shirt-transfers1.jpg
My comment to the women who yearn for a world without men; Be careful what you wish for.
With apologies to composers Strouse and Adams: “Why can’t men be like women, perfect in every way? Oh, what’s the matter with men today?”
Answering that last question, I’d say the main thing wrong with men is NY Times writers like Greg Hampikian, who seem willing to, as they say, throw his own gender under the bus. What an idiot!
HATE SPEECH ™, hate speech ™, hate speech ™, Send him to jail. Hate speech!(tm) Send me money from the class action suit, (hate speech!(tm))
OOPS, being a white, anglo-saxon male engineer who build factories employing hundreds of people, while paying taxes, I can’t sue for Hate Speech ™. Because the hate is justified????
Men aren’t necessary? Men built everything, discovered everything, invented everything. And all we ask is that you make us a sandwich once in a while.
War on men? http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/male-rape-possible
This doubles Ms. Ensler’s statistics. Math is hard.
“Most research suggests that 10 to 20 percent of all males will be sexually violated at some point in their lives and that one in every ten rape victims is male.”
By simple multplication, every woman is raped 1 to 2 times (maybe more) during her life? What kind of statistics are these?
Sorry, got that backwards. But still….
Who’s your daddy indeed: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-5189771.html.
I sometimes wonder why so many males I know actively desire a M->F Sex Change.
I think it’s because they’re bombarded their entire lives, from early childhood on, with crap like that article.
Helen, Thanks for sticking up for us. Makes me wonder how good a deal the guys on Death Row in Idaho are getting. Obviously – he doesn’t seem to think they are worth the effort.
I just sent an email to his dept. chairman.
My sister,who is studying to become a therapist,was discussing the problem of the lack of men in college. I told her it was partially because of the hostility men face on campus. She denied this,but the prof. is the rule not the exception at college.
Frau Hampikian should put his testes where his mouth is and get sterilized. That way, he wouldnt have to worry about performing manly functions, and we wouldnt be penalized with his offspring. As Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once stated “three generations of idiots is enough”
I just started chuckling…
we can expect to see more women choose to reproduce without men entirely
Orly? Where will they get the sperm?
Great Danes. It’s a twofer, actually.
Of course men are useless. What have they ever done except liberate women and protect them from being chattel?
I in fact read this NYT article, after also reading a review of Hanna Rosin’s book “The End of Men”. I find this kind of obsequious pop-feminism man bashing to be really insulting. I am a man. My main and only interest is living in a world where we can overcome and drop all these negative expressions of masculinity and femininity, grow up out of this permanent state of being psychologically infantile, and evolve as a species. This applies to all sexes and races. To me anything less then this as a goal is counterproductive and stupid. This new fad popularizing man-bashing, while simultaneously idolizing this hypermasculine, ultra-aggressive kind of male “toy” you see fetishized in pop-feminism, is destructive and insulting to all people, men and women.
The world surely doesn’t need feminized men like the Hampikian one. Some one should give the Gregster the bad news – real women beat the imitation ones every time.
“we can expect to see more women choose to reproduce without men entirely.”
Perhaps Mr Hampikian creepily believes he can take a cutting from a woman just as one can from a rose; maybe a finger then stick it in the ground. Voila! a new woman grows up out of the ground from the finger. I’m sure Hampikian also believes that if you plant cheerios you’ll get an orchard full of donut trees.
What absolute nonsense this Greg Hampikian spouts. Men and women need each other. Always have; always will and that’s a good thing.
Oh, Hampikian’s wierder than you imagine. For instance, he believes he was born as a egg in his grandmother’s womb.
Not to disagree with the majority of your comments, but the (potential) eunuch who wrote this article has degrees in both biology and genetics, and should therefore understand the role required for men (and their sperm) in the meiosis process.
The fact that he doesn’t understand human behavior, society, or basic human nature, does not mean that he is a complete idiot…
“We can’t allow science to undo its own good work.”
- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, Ch. 17
Having a degree doesn’t mean you’re *not* a complete idiot. They’re more “marks of attendance” than anything else.
“The fact that he doesn’t understand human behavior, society, or basic human nature, does not mean that he is a complete idiot…”
Yes, yes it does. (I personally presume you were being ironic.)
The article is circular and self-contradictory. Poverty is the result of single parenthood, of no men in the so called “family.” Saying that it is poverty, not the lack of a father, is foolish idiocy.
Poverty is not having a father in your house stupid.
Trey
Think of the wars they would wage.
Historically, the women were the worst fanatics and anti-semites, although I do admit that the current thinking is that Ferdinand, not Jeze – I mean Isabella – was the real villian in the Spanish expulsion.
The plus side of such a disgraceful piece of work like this, and others, is that the mask of current “leftism” is coming down and it’s sexism, racism and general contempt for other points of view is becoming more & more obvious. My hope & prayer is that we as a nation will collectively realize this before it’s too late.
There is an interesting companion piece to this here on PJMedia. It is Pamela Geller’s article on “1001 Pieces of Islamist Propaganda”. As I said over there, it seems a smart strategy to minimize the importance of the men of a society & culture, fabricate the accomplishments of the adversary culture, making it much easier to morph into that other culture.
The left is looking more & more sinister to me every day.
The letter I sent 8/26/12 to letters@nytimes.com and Greg Hampikian (greghampikian@boisestate.edu),
To the NY Times:
Your opinion column, “Men, Who Needs Them?” (8/24/12) was written by a Greg Hampikian
who claims to be a professor of biology and criminal justice. I suggest you check his credentials.
In his piece, he commits some astonishing scientific errors in his campaign to argue that men
simply have no role in the procreation of the human race, including their daughters. In fact, I’m
not sure he ever took a high school biology class.
For example, Prof. Hampikian argues that men make a negligible contribution to the genes of their
offspring. He writes statements such as the following:
“…..women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither.”.
Incorrect, Prof. Hampikian. Women are necessary, but not sufficient for reproduction. Most high
school students can get this much genetics straight.
(Regarding the act of conception, and pretending that a human being with a complete genome exists
in the egg cell): “Then, at some point, your father spent a few minutes close by, but then left. A little
while later, you encountered some very odd tiny cells that he had shed. They did not merge with you,
or give you any cell membranes or nutrients – just an infinitesimally small packet of DNA, less than
one-millionth of your mass.”
“…..your father’s 3.3 picograms of DNA comes out to less than one pound of male contribution since
the beginning of Homo sapiens 107 billion babies ago.”.
I see, Prof. Hampikian, from your web page that you are a professor of biology at Boise State
University. If that’s true, you know quite well that you are arguing by selective omission of evidence.
Two gametes, the egg and the sperm, do in fact merge to form a human embryo. The number of
genes, and most certainly the “infinitesimally small packet of DNA”, that the sperm contributes is
very, very nearly equal to what the egg cell contains. As the embryo develops into a fetus, the paternal
genes are copied into the growing number of cells in just the same numbers as the maternal genes.
Not only that, but the sperm and egg gametes both are generated by a process that recombines the
paternal and maternal DNA of that mother or father. At this point in your opinion piece, I was starting
to wonder if you were going to describe the diploid nature of the human genome (two copies of each
gene, one from mother, one from father) as evidence of patriarchal oppression of women. You know,
the paternal genes overwhelming the maternal genes. Or something like that. Your failure to get
high school biology straight, despite your claimed Ph.D in genetics, puts your integrity and
commitment to scholarship on the line.
Elsewhere in your column, you argue that women can reproduce from a bank of frozen sperm
cells, and just get rid of the men. Since many feminist writers argue that gender is a social construct,
why not get rid of the women, and men can reproduce using artificial incubators? After all, men
have invented nearly everything that makes modern civilization possible, including the labor-saving
devices that women use daily in their households and saves them the time to be feminists in the
first place. An artificial incubator could be next.
And finally, Prof. Hampikian, there’s good reason to question your other credential listed on your
web page……that you have a joint appointment at Boise State, in the department of criminal justice.
In closing your column, you wrote of the geneticist J. Craig Venter, who recently had swapped out
the DNA genome of one of the smallest cells known, a mycoplasma cell, with a synthetic genome.
It is patently obvious that this could be applied, in principle, to egg cells. In a baffling, nonsensical
leap of logic, you wrote “In doing so, he unwittingly demonstrated that the female component of sexual
reproduction, the egg cell, cannot be manufactured, but the male can.” But I was wondering about
your colleague’s unwitting violation of Boise State’s sexual harassment policy: “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.” ” If you really have the expertise in criminology that you
claim, you would know that gender is a protected category. As for whether men qualify as a gender,
I’ll leave that as an exercise for you. You clearly haven’t figured it out yet. But maybe you can start
by asking this female colleague if she thinks that women are “entertaining”. Make sure you do that in
your workplace.
But there is something you didn’t disclose to your readers. Your web site shows you did a postdoc
with Jennifer Graves, a genetics professor studying the sex chromosomes, who has made anti-male
comments (especially regarding the Y chromosome) randomly inserted in her scholarly publications.
Those comments are easily verifiable. Despite her prediction that the Y chromosome will disappear,
a recent Nature paper (and I’m pretty sure you know which one), showed that the human Y chromosome
has only lost one gene in 25 million years. Humans have existed for less than one percent of that time.
Feminism, and the potential for bad scholarship that exists in that and every field, have existed for
much less than that. The Y chromosome has a degree of stability that she hadn’t anticipated. I think
it’s pretty safe to assume your column drew inspiration from your former mentor. I suggest that next time
you write an opinion piece, you show a basic respect for the science instead of being a sad shill for
Jennifer Graves and other women who have stirred up hate against men to advance their own careers
as crappy, fourth-rate feminist thinkers.
On the first day of school at Perry Hall High School in the suburbs of Baltimore, one student brought a shotgun and 21 rounds of ammunition to school and opened fire in the cafeteria.
Fourteen students died and six others were wounded before the shooter used the last shell to commit suicide, according to police reports.
At a press conference today, Principal Susan Smith, along with the other 42 women on the school faculty, lamented the loss of life. “There was no one who could stop the shooter,” said Smith. “We all ran away as fast as we could, but neither we nor the students could outrun those shots.”
The cafeteria monitor, Mary Jones agreed. “The student was bigger than me and armed with a shotgun and I was 15 feet away when the first shot was fired. I had no chance to stop it.”
This shooting is why concealed carry ought to be encouraged at schools. If the cafeteria monitor had been armed she could’ve stopped the shooter instead of running away.
You did realize, I hope, that what I posted is not what happened. No one was killed in the actual event, and the administration person there who stopped the incident was not a “she” and did not run.
The article editorial is brilliant. Your comments in the wake of its publication prove it! So glad that this ‘Uncle Tim’ could get you so wound up. I am a bit surprised that so many of you right wing zoo trotters have responded…. didn’t know you all could read.
“…didn’t know you all could read”
Seems that we write English better than you, too; that should have read “didn’t know that all of you could read.”
Report for a hysterectomy before you breed, you illiterate sexist.