Slashdot Mirror
Sperm Made From Female Bone Marrow, Men Obsolete?
Shaitan Apistos writes "British scientists have discovered a way to turn female bone marrow into sperm, allowing women to reproduce without the need of male companionship. All children born of this method would be female, due the lack Y chromosomes, and there is high chance of birth defects. Eggs also can be created from male bone marrow, but men looking to reproduce would still need to find a surrogate mother to handle the gestation period. I'd like to take a moment to welcome our new amazonian overlords and remind them that men are still very good at mowing lawns and fixing cars."
But many women like the, ahem, companionship of other women. If this has a genetic basis (almost certain) then the genetic offspring of two such women is very likely to feel the same way. A female-only subculture is almost certainly on the way.
The depressing thing is, as a man I can't really think of why we should be allowed to stick around.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
I think you're right, I don't think the intention is for women to impregnate themselves with sperm created from their own bone marrow. The idea is that a woman can impregnate another woman.
Most people view such questions as shocking, revolting, taboo. We have collectively decided that such questions simply have no place in our lives. We do not need any explanations or justifications: the idea that all these groups have a fundamental and irrevocable right to exist is taken as axiomatic. It's one of the foundations of our modern western civilisation, period, and there is simply no further room for debate.
The question of whether men should be "allowed" to exist is the same question, asked in a different way. Therefore the answer, to people in our society, will be the same: of course men must be allowed to exist. No justification will be required.
(Not to invoke Godwin or anything, but there's a reason some people refer to extremist feminists as "feminazis". Their views are unlikely to become mainstream any time soon.)
Don't fall into the trap that "biological" means "genetic." There is almost certainly a biological basis to homosexuality, but it may be epigenetic rather than "genetic" as most people mean the term. It seems to be more complicated than most - including myself - think.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Surprise surprise, a male (Karim Nayernia) invented the technique. I guess that's how superfluous we are?
But hey it's alright to be sexist; you're female.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
While feminists like to exaggerate the bad properties and general uselessness of men and the superior characteristics of women, they fail to realize that those properties have been genetically selected by their sexual counterpart. If men are really that useless, this must mean that women really suck at selecting a sexual partner.
If womens "stupid useless macho" partner preference is left unchecked by a mitigating male preference, everybody in the future will pretty much be a man with different sexual organs.
From a sexual point of view, most women are still part conditioned and part pre-programmed to want male ahem companionship.
I take it you haven't fathered any offspring. That "want" you're referring to is at its height during the brief courtship phase. Past that, it's replaced with something very different.
Here's how it works. The girl gets pregnant and your "companionship" privileges are revoked with occasional but increasingly rare exceptions using rules that only a woman could understand.
The child is born. Companionship has been replaced by sharing of duties. A year or two passes, and the privileges return occasionally, but only if you've met your workload. That continues for several years (in an ideal environment) until lust and love are relegated to "remember when?" memories. The bond between the mother and child is strong and unbreakable. The bond between the two of you is weak. You're now living the life of someone who's entered into a series of complex, interwined legal and financial agreements. Satisfy all those agreements and you may reach the 6-7 year mark. Fail, or complain about the loss of companionship, you'll discover what misery really means.
If you've come this far, and you're unhappy, then it's hookers and blackjack for you (she's busy and has "her" kids to think about). On the other hand, if she's unhappy, she will consider you as unimportant, and leave. The legal and financial agreements stay, so she gets the kids and house, and you get the bills. The world will be supportive of her decision, and you end up like a stray dog wandering the streets.
Let's all be friends, instead.
Only if you were friends to begins with. Good friends are sufficiently motivated to work things out. But then, ask yourself often people marry their friends?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Yes, we want financial security - name me just one person in this world, of either sex, who doesn't. Yes, most (but not all) of us want to raise families. Yes, we want you to share the workload of raising the kids - it's a damned hard job, as I'm sure you are aware, on top of whatever other 'duties' the woman of the house takes on (e.g. the stereotypical cook/clean/sew routine).
Yes, the mother-child bond is strong - damned strong - but the bond between the two partners is only as weak as the weakest member of that partnership. Period.
The simple fact is, we're not all the way you've described, and if you've been "lucky" enough to find only that subset of women that are, then you are surely looking in the wrong place(s), and/or you just don't know jack shit about women.