06-21-2018 04:10:41 PM -0700
06-21-2018 08:27:13 AM -0700
06-20-2018 09:04:40 AM -0700
06-20-2018 06:42:47 AM -0700
06-19-2018 10:24:27 PM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Who Needs Men? 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?


Cross-posted at the Dr. Helen blog.

Image courtesy shutterstock / Dietmar Hoepfl

More on Men and Women at PJ Lifestyle:

In the Future, Will Sexbots Replace Real Women?

The Sex Bots Have Arrived

The Male Birth Control Pill Arrives