Search
Around The World
Are men doomed?
Fri Jul 10 05:58PM
That provocative if daft question popped up this week after scientists in Britain said they had created human sperm in the lab. If there's no need for sperm, goes the thought, why do we need men? Imagine a world without all the testosterone.
Would it be more restful and peaceful, less bloodied by war? Would it be kinder, more consensual?
What about science and the arts? Take away men, and you would have no more Darwins, Michelangelos, Shakespeares, Mozarts. Could women equal their genius?
The male-vs-female debate is of a course time-honoured debate, though I have often found it rather sterile, with predictable stereotypes that are rounded up and fired, probably to ease some ancient resentment against the opposite sex.
In this case, though, the intriguing scientific question also raises an intriguing social one. What, in fact, is the point of men? An anthropologist might say that, in our palaeolithic past, men were assigned the role of hunter-gatherer because of their greater strength and speed.
Women, though, were required to be home-makers because of their physiology, as the bearer and nurturer of offspring. These genetic basics were imperatives for survival in a hostile, uncertain world. They became codified socially, reinforced by laws and religious edicts about gender behaviour and, more subtly, through child-raising.
The traditional gender codes went unchallenged so long as human society still survived by muscle strength. But cracks started to appear when machines started to do the jobs that, before, only men could do.
When it became obvious that, thanks to machines, women could do the same job as men -- as for instance when they became munitions workers in Europe in World War I -- the old order was confronted by a huge challenge. To my mind, the process snowballed into a revolution half a century ago, with the advent of the Pill.
Control over their own fertility unleased enormous empowerment for women, enabling them to choose when to have a family. They could at last look beyond a role as homemaker and envision a career. Eventually, legal and social changes helped to fling open doors to them in any number of professions.
Today, as we move into the post-industrial economy, the future for women looks brighter than ever. An economy that wants to be based on knowledge has to be gender-equal in order to survive, for it cannot afford not to use half of its intellectual assets.
Countries that do not allow women a good education that is equal to men's and let them have the means to use it are doomed to fall behind.
The advancement of women, though, raises the question: What about men?
Answering it has never been easy, especially for men and societies that were quite comfortable with the old hierarchy, the old rules and roles, in sexual relationships, the home and the workplace. In the most conservative societies, change seems to be interpreted as a mortal threat that can only be combatted by denial and iron-fisted enforcement of tradition. Yet even in western countries that were the first to experience change, adaptation has not been easy.
A common theme of books, films and songs these days is men who are unanchored, adrift in their relationships and uncertain about what they do, reflecting an existential unease.
In this blog, reporters and editors for global news wire AFP blog about the news they report and the challenges they face covering events from Baghdad to Beijing, the White House to Darfur. Richard Inham is AFP Health & Science editor.
Comment on this article
Video
-
Who writes 'Around The World'?
-
Author Profiles
Info on the writers behind this blog
-
Latest UK news
- Regime Change In Iraq First Discussed In 2001 SkyNews - 2 hours 50 mins ago
- Two Men Charged Over NI Cop Shoot-Out SkyNews - 2 hours 52 mins ago
- More Heavy Rain As Fears Grow Over Bridge SkyNews - 3 hours 10 mins ago
- Council prosecute HMV for live Faryl Smith song ITN - 6 hours 44 mins ago
- Royal Aide's Escape From Jail A 'Disgrace' SkyNews - 6 hours 50 mins ago
Add to my Yahoo/RSS
MORE ON YAHOO! NEWS
Subscribe to our news feeds
Editor's Corner
SITE HIGHLIGHTS
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! All rights reserved.
Notice: We collect personal information on this site. To learn more about how we use your information, see our: Updated Privacy Policy
WHAT IS A WOMAN WITHOUT MAN. WO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report abuse
At last, us blokes can get on with our own lives and quit saying 'yes dear'. just to save our ear drums and wallets. The only demand we'll have is getting to the pub on time!!! bring it on 'Darling, Love' or whatever else seems to upset 'em.
Report abuse
of course men aren't doomed. i mean, who would be here to make women miserable?
Report abuse
...WHAT...16 adenatio....you mean Margaret Thatcher was....realy.... a WOMAN.....Streuth....I thought they were all sweetness & light,... smelling nice,... looking lovely,.... had pretty little flowery things sewn on their clothes.... &.... always nice to be with....Huh! the planners got it wrong with HER didn,t they????....
Report abuse
I think it's very funny that men are really panicking just because this laboratory as done this it's an excellent idea in some ways but we will always need men like someone said we will always need men to do certain jobs for us ok there are some macho women out there. But this must make some men feel a little threatened but it's not that different to having a sperm donor really is it?
Report abuse
Provocative certainly. Daft? Not a bit. The only part the Male has to play in the survival of the Species (Homo Sapiens) is to provide Sperm. It is the Female who concieves, gestates, and gives birth to offspring. If an alternative to Male provided Sperm is available, then what part for the Male?
::
The Male has evolved as the primary Hunter/Gatherer, but it is a role that can just as well be performed by the Female, WHEN they are not producing offspring, which only has a dramatic physical impact for a relatively short period of time. Moreover, the role of Hunter/Gatherer is arguably redundant now as the prerogative of the Male. There are some things that the Male is better at (in general) than the Female, but none of these are essential to the survival of the Species (apart from providing Sperm).
::
I will be even more provocative. The Male has (to all intents and purposes) had control over how the Species behaves when it comes to organisation, society, laws, and ethics for 10's of thousands if not 100' of thousands of years. In my openion, it has failed abysmally. Whereas the Species has the intelligence and capability (right now) to provide well-being for all (that is ALL) Human beings, and live in balance with the environment and all life forms, it has patently failed to do so, which is why I classify Homo Sapiens as a 'broken' Species. It calls itself 'intelligent', but demonstrates anything but. This is the fault of the Male, and they only have themselves to blame. If Females had the power and control, then they could be blamed, but Males have made sure that Females do not have that power and control. Idiots. Females are superior to Males, and could be the reason why Males have endeavoured to keep them as second class citizens, or worse, just chattel; the 'possesion' of the Male. How arrogant, but typically Male.
::
There is one defense I will offer for the Male, and that is Testosterone. It is one of the causes of the Male's abherrant behaviour, but as a bio-chemical organism, the Human is very much at the mercy of his or her biology where chemicals fuel and drive so many processes. Whilst Testosterone certainly had it's place in pre-historic times, apart from contributing to the sex drive, it is now redundant, as 'intelligence' is a more powerful and capable characteristic in terms of dealing with the environment and how the Species progresses (or not as the case may be). To sum up, the Male is a dangerous and superfluous gender from the Female and Species' point of view, apart from producing Sperm. On this basis, the sooner Females can acquire Sperm independantly of Males, the sooner the Male can relegated to the s@#$% heap, and no bad thing for the Species based on the way the Male has behaved since the beginning of time (for the Species).
::
However, what about Genetic Engineering? By the same token, the Female role as procreator could become redundant too. With Sperm being derived from Stem Cells (or whatever), and by the same technology, why not Eggs? Cloning would eliminate the need for either. What then? No need for Males or Females. In the short term (up to some thousands of years) there is little likelyhood of any significant change to the Species, but given evolutionary time, perhaps some really big changes. Really big.
::
First, the Species (as is the same with any Species) will attempt to survive. This has nothing to do with intelligence. It is a Genetic process happening a the Molecular level, primarily through DNA and associated chemicals. How a Species survives from generation to generation is based on the charactristic of those that survive (or able to pass on their genetics). If Genes do not survive, then they cannot influence evolution. So in simple terms, evolution is based on who is left (the Genes that have been passed on). If (and it is a big if of course) they NEED to copulate between Male and Female in order to produce offspring (pass on the Genes) so that the Species continues to survive, then what will evolve? It's not a simplistic consideration. The ability to produce Eggs and Sperm may not necessarily be 'evolved out' as long as the Genetics continue to be passed on from generation to generation, but what evolves will not be influenced by the 'need' to procreate as now. But here is the rub:
::
Evolution is a process whereby a Species survives by the ability to procreate (produce offspring) through the transmission of chemical/genetic material. That material defines the characteristics of the Species. If Homo Sapiens does not need to procreate to produce offspring, for example Cloning, where is evolution then?
::
I have no doubt should Man continue to advance technologically, it will eventually be able to control all the processes of bio-chemical life. The characteristics of a new individual need not have anything to do with the current structure and composition of the Species. So, Male and Female are not essential. All the mechanics of the organism are up for grabs. All the organs we now take for granted could be redesigned, replaced, or removed altogether. Why not? Some of them have serious flaws anyway. Why not create something better?
::
But for those that may think this could be a recipe for immortality, this will not happen. Entropy (the natural processes of decay) exist in the fabric of the Universe, and there are no exceptions. Everything is made up from the same stuff elementally (at the Atomic level). Given time, everything decays, even rock. There is only one 'immortal' state, and that exists at absolute zero, where nothing moves, not even Atoms. But there's the rub. Nothing can 'live' at that temperature, so it is a 'permanent' form of stasis. This could be the destiney of everything. Once entropy has reduced the composition of the entire universe to a lifeless state of absolute zero, then that is the end of everything. If that is the case, then there is nothing we can do about it. Nothing. That is a comforting thought is it not?....
Report abuse
And Maggie banned the word 'Reverse'!!!
Also - as someone who will only ever have children through adoption or marriage..... is it possible that infertility is nature's way of keeping the gene pool healthy - and it's quite possible that while someone might be a genius, there could be something in their genes that might be 'undesirable for the human race' further down the years.....? In which case - all the infertility treatments are working against nature and damaging the race. Oh - hold on, where did 'chav's' come from and why are we getting more of them?
Report abuse
...Errrr!!!!....26 chris bean......can you just run that past me again mate????....
Report abuse
Taking the logic further, no reason why ovum can't be created, and the construction of an artificial womb is not inconceivable (pun intended!)...... so are women doomed - of course not. Although I suspect the idea of avoiding the 9 months and stretch marks might well appeal!
Report abuse
Read some Virgina Wolff - Even if Shakespeare had had a sister who was just as smart as him, she wouldnt have gone to school, she wouldn't have known how to write, so she couldn't have been a playwright, but today its all different, ergo the 'great male genius' argument is defunct
For examples of the change/equalisation of artistic merit/ability - Dickens Vrs Elliot/Gaskell
Report abuse