People keep coming up with more and more intricate ways to dump on the women’s liberation movement:
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?
This is the kind of crap the New York Times publishes, folks. Before you fall into the trap the author of the quoted piece has prepared for you and start defending the “need” for men to exist, let’s look at what the article is really trying to accomplish. This is nothing but a blatant attempt to make people angry with an obviously offensive question. After they do get angry, it will be easy to smuggle any ideological manipulation past them.
The main idea of the article is the age-old myth that whenever women gain rights, men lose out. This battle-between-the-sexes mentality is one of the favorite weapons of the patriarchy. Any reasonable person who is not deeply invested into the preservation of the strict gender binary, however, realizes that this is not how things work. The destruction of strict gender divisions benefits both men and women because different kinds of masculinity, femininity and intersexuality become legitimate. For instance, if women can work and make their own money, this not only benefits women but also men who don’t have to carry the burden of “providing” for a group of dependents on their own. And I cannot believe I have to explain something this basic in year 2012.
The article’s author ends his piece with the following inanity:
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.
This is a favorite trick of all anti-feminists. A spurious anecdote about some ridiculous and offensive pronouncement from a man-eating, ball-busting “feminazi” is offered and then followed immediately with a rallying call to the poor, persecuted men. “Beware, fellow men,” the author is saying. “Or the vile female-lib creatures will get rid of you altogether.” As a result, many feminists will become bogged down in explanations of how we are not opposed to the existence of men. In the meanwhile, the very real assault on reproductive rights can continue unchecked. Come on, who cares about rape victims, unintended pregnancies and healthcare provided by Planned Parenthood when we live in a world where women have gotten so much power that they are seriously thinking of getting rid of men. It has to be true because the New York Times said so.