Just something I can’t get out my head recently

[RightOrAMeringue]

Let me preface this by saying it’s really reductive and over-simplified and a bit daft. I get that. And also I have lots of men who I cherish in my life -
dad, bro, husband, friends, etc etc. But I just can’t stop thinking about it as a concept, so hear me out…

AIBU to suggest/ partially believe that society, as a whole, would function better in the absence of men? Say that we found a way to artificially create sperm, or just fertilise eggs….would people still go for the organic stuff and roll the dice on the person that comes along with it? And, if not, and if the option to select gender presumably came along with the artificial sperm revelation…why would anyone choose to have a male child, and risk never having grandkids? And therefore…would an all-female society emerge? If so, would it be better? I say yes.

Before anyone says we have that option right now in the form of sperm donors/ one-night-stands etc, it’s not quite the same. It’s never totally string-free, and society is woefully lacking when it comes to being a single parent. Sex selection also requires IVF, and it’s not exactly reliable. Im talking about a world where you can buy artificial…semen, DNA, whatever, and apply it like a medication. Boom, pregnant.

As for the emergent utopia, I feel like a world where a far greater proportion had the theoretical opportunity to grow a child would soon begin to look after their interests in terms of career and income protection, mental health, general gynaecological and obstetric healthcare. We might see more of the fabled “Village” form to support parents and, therefore, children. Children therefore may be more well-adjusted with better early years care….less neglect/ deprivation/ childhood trauma….less crime?! Social services/ prisons/ policing costs come down, get reinvested into….healthcare? A free holiday for everyone every year?! Who knows.

Going by the stats, and assuming the absence of men doesn’t increase/ decrease women’s likelihood of committing certain crimes, we could expect astonishing reductions in sexual and domestic violence, murder, drug dealing, people trafficking, drug addiction…the list goes on. And, I reckon, you could argue that even if there was an uptick in female offending, it still wouldn’t be enough to fill the void left by male offenders.

I don’t know. This isn’t a call-to-arms, not making a case for it, I don’t hate men. The idea came to me and I haven’t been able to get it out my head as a concept. Reached a point where I’m just really interested to know what others think 🤣 by all means, point out everything I’ve missed/ am
completely wrong about.

I went to an all girls school. It was an incredibly bitchy place

I think it would be fucking awful. I love laughing at men. And I don't mean that in an unkind way 😄 I find their humour far funnier and I quite like that they do stupid stuff 🤷‍♀️ tbh id rather be around a group of men than a group of women on the whole - odviouslythere are exceptions to that. I think a world with only women would become extremely bitchy and spiteful.

I think you should write a dystopian novel to explore this concept. I would read it.

I was just going to say that

But women would still want sex and some female to female relationships can be very violent and toxic and controlling , interesting thought tho, if its all down to testosterone maybe we just castrate all men,

Much as I would like to agree with you, I have such a lovely son and he gives me hope for the male species.

Except it’s not. I bet if you looked into the backgrounds of the people in women’s prisons, 90+% of them will have experienced domestic abuse in some way, either as a child and/or in their adult relationships. Usually both. Many people have absolutely no idea how prevalent it is. And it’s overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. I’m not saying it’s the only contributory factor, but it will be a significant one in most cases.

Fought wars? They start them in the first place!

I voted YABU because I adore my husband and couldn't imagine life without him......but I do understand where you are coming from, the majority of violent crimes are committed by men and any society with less violence would be significantly better.

No way. I love male company, men are great. I've just realised how much nicer the dads are than the snobby mums at nursery. Men are so much more easygoing.

I agree. I think even though some men might be violent, many more women are bitchy, judgemental and toxic. The worst bosses I have had have been female.

This!!

So people on here would be fine with theot MIL, SIL, DIL, partners ex or new partner, female colleagues all the women postera complain about all being in position of power or making decisions etc. or is it a case of 'every other women would be fine but not ones i know''

But personally why would I assume women as a whole are better than men just because they are women? The idea logically makes no sense

Watch the film Gattaca

If you want to see if women can survive without men - watch the Bear Grylls thing where they put a group of women on an island, and a group of men on one. The men all worked together and celebrated each others successes in fire building, fishing etc. They got on with things.

The women lazed around, failed to take basic steps to secure water, shelter, etc. talked about their feelings and were useless. When the tv crew released some small pigs so they’d have a chance of not starving..the women made pets of them.

Eventually I think they went to the men’s camp and lazed around there while the men did all the work to look after things.

I’ll stick with the men, thanks.

You seem to have confused multiple episodes:

1. Just men, as part of a test to see if "modern men" could survive outside civilisation. The men struggled to get organised, suffered at first then got better
2. One island of men, one of women. The women had a tougher time of it than the men to start with. They were slower to focus on building shelter and there was a time when they were really struggling. Eventually they figured it out.
3. One island of men and women who started out in seperate groups until they found each other. In this case the women were doing much better. They were the only ones with decent shelter. They were also the only ones with food which they shared with the men when they met up.

So clearly women aren't always better at cooperation (they struggled with it in the 2 example). But what you wrote just didn't happen.
Also though - the show is an entertainment show which always follows the same arc - group struggles, drama and failings out, moment of tension "make or break", group gets better and ultimately triumphs. It's not a sociological study.

If you want to stick with men why are you on a primarily female site?

I think society would be very bitchy if it only consisted of women. I prefer male friends as they are less judgemental, more straightforward and less mean.

This bit though
"Say that we found a way to artificially create sperm, or just fertilise eggs"

I believe scientists did accidentally find out it's possible to fertilise eggs with eggs (it was while researching mitochondrial disorders). If you introduce an unfertilised egg to an unfertilised egg they will fuse in the same way an egg and sperm will to form something that behaves like a fertilised egg.
However - there is no way of knowing whether said fertilised egg would be able to develop into a healthy baby if implanted because it's never been done and can never be done as it's unethical. It would be creating a child in am entirely artificial way purely to see what would happen
So, its not really a technical issue but a moral one "just because we can doesn't mean we should". And I agree with that, even though it's also interesting to hypothetically muse about what such a society (female only) would look like. What's interesting is that as much as certain people like to portray women/feminists as man haters etc no-one is genuinely pushing for this. Whereas stuff techbros or other powerful men want (replacing the working man with AI) is portrayed as "inevitable"
It's perfectly possible to have the technology and decide not to do something.

Oh no! I must leave the site because some random decided it’s a gotcha to say that Mumsnet is mostly female.

I don’t rely on Mumsnet for survival my dear. Nor do I only look at mumsnet.

And thank you for your plot summary. I’m going not guess I mostly say the second on. And thank you for confirming the women were useless.

We need both men and women. Women who blame men for all of life’s ills have an incredibly distorted perspective.

Not saying you need to leave the site. However, I hope you have this:
"The men all worked together and celebrated each others successes in fire building, fishing etc"

In your own life.as well. It's very important to have real life friends.

The world takes all sorts and we need diversity. Men are on average bigger risk takers and that surely has benefits in some areas. Would we be stupid enough to figure out what random mushrooms or berries you can eat or would kill you? Probably not but I’m glad of the stupid men who took the risk to figure it out. In fact I think your suggestion is sort of offensive because you could also say what if we had a world without blind people, for example, but they still bring unique talents skills and viewpoints to humanity.

There's a vast difference between 'a world without men' and 'a world without patriarchy'. The latter is a far better idea than the former.

The mere fact that a pp thinks that 'fighting wars' is a reason to be grateful to men is a clear sign of how far we still have to go to create a more equitable, less violent, more collaborative society though.

you do realise that "liking men" isn't an exact equivalent to every minute of your day spent not in the company of men to be a complete waste?

I doubt those women spend 24hrs a day swimming and singing. They probably do it for an hour or two a few times a week, and lots then go home to their husbands.

It's called having friends and interests. Perhaps try it?

So…in a way you consider being male as a disability, like blindness? Unexpected take.

But no, I don’t really accept that extrapolation. Firstly, I don’t think being male is a disability, and this isn’t a eugenics chat. Don’t super-appreciate that shoehorning.

My question was more asking…if we take procreation out of the equation, is there any benefit to society of keeping males around, considering they cause so much trouble? That’s it distilled down, really. And, although I’ve caveated it umpteen times and defended myself against countless pick-me’s who just adore their male friends and hate fellow women (eye roll), I’ll do it again: this was quite an upsetting thought when it occurred to me. I actually think masculinity is in crisis rn, with a lack of direction or (healthy) sense of identity. If the defining characteristics of your gender are perceived to be harmful, unpleasant, antisocial, outdated, unneeded….God, that’s a horrid place to be. And I know, for one, that the men in my life who I love are an overwhelming force for good in my life. So….i guess my REAL question/ request here was that people tempered the scary thought I had, and remind me of all the ways that just wouldn’t work/ how men, despite the crime stats and bad behaviour, ARE worth having around. You’ll notice I haven’t really being going around telling people they’re wrong/right, only thanking them for their contributions and/or book recommendations.

Society, as far as I know, doesn’t have an overarching problem with blind rapists, murderers, drug dealers, human traffickers, dictators. I don’t think there are many links between any particular disabilities and crime….unless, as i said, you count being male as a disability 🤣

EDIT: also wanted to take the opportunity to thank commenters again, really enjoyed reading the responses, there’s so much original and critical thought in them, as well as good humour. Would ALSO like to address the aforementioned pick-me’s: women aren’t the enemy. The bitchiness, the undercutting, the competitiveness…surely you’ve got to view it in the context of women being the repressed half of society for centuries, and therefore having to fight over what scraps they can. When your survival (and that of your children) relies on your ability to sexually attract/ placate/ keep hold of a man….that’s got to screw with your head. And that headfuck becomes generational: “women should/shouldnt act/look/be….”, families pinning their honour on their female members, men deriving self-worth from trophy wives, men who cheat on their spouses getting a get-out-of-jail-free card because it’s the woman who’s the home-wrecker, an absentee father not being treated with half the disgust and revulsion that a woman who takes off is…..the list goes on. Women are not the enemy. Nor are men. Misogyny is, and it’s quite sad to see so many women internalising it.

this doesn't make any sense unless you honestly think that the reason women aren't out committing serious crimes at the same rate than men (rather than less than 1/25th as much) is because there's only enough capacity for so many murders a year and men are blocking them from achieving their stats, like some sort of serious crime glass ceiling or whatever.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all women are angels and if all men disappeared there would be no bad people ever. But currently the prison population is 96% male, and that's with women being convicted for lesser crimes than men - e.g. not paying tv license fines.

In 2024, there were 87,869 men and 3,635 women in prisons in England and Wales. With an overall population of 68.3 million, 51% female 49% male, so I've rounded down to 35 million women, 33 million men as a very rough estimate.
That equals 0.01% of women in prison, or 1 in every 10,000 and 0.26% of men = 26 in every 10,000.

So, yes, obviously if all the men disappeared, the chances are the world would be a much, much safer place. If only 1 in every 10,000 people were carrying out a serious crime rather than 26 of them then obviously crime would be hugely reduced.

And that's not even taking into consideration what the poster you were replying to explained, which is that a lots of women are only in prison because they've been abused by men in some way.

So even those calculations are based on the assumption that all of the prison population are innately, as you so simplistically referred to them as, "wrong-uns," rather than influenced by the patriarchy and disproportionately convicted for minor crimes. If you broke down those stats by serious crime instead they'd be even starker.