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 mean, my main issue would be that I want a romantic relationship in life and I'm straight.

Also, I have one male child who may never give me grandchildren. I wouldn't care as long as he's happy. I didn't have him because I wanted grandchildren, so I find that sentence in your op a bit bizarre.

Lovely misandry OP.

When you skim-read, you miss an awful lot of detail. Try again.

No I read the whole thing.

We need male violence to defend our peace surely?

"Social services/ prisons/ policing costs come down, get reinvested into….healthcare? A free holiday for everyone every year?! Who knows."

Who is going to pay for all of this?

I would like the OP to point out what she thinks you've missed - specifically - which negates the accusation of misandry.

Also, the incels are dreaming of a parallel utopia, without women, due to advances in artificial gestation.

Burden of proof rests with the accuser, I’m afraid.

From whom?
That's why as a thought experiment it only works if all the men disappear - if you set up a woman only country it would be vulnerable to attack. But if all the men are gone does war also decrease?It's more complicated than "are women as capable of being nasty as men" because clearly there are aggressive women (Catherine the Great), but as a group women seem less inclined to go on expansionist wars of conquest (when it's a case of defending their own land women are often as motivated as men). So you might have a hard time convincing enough women they need to go invade France. French women would probably be well up for defending Calais though.

But systems are as important. Eg in a company that encourages high risk taking you might see more men because you get more makes at those extremes. But if you said "we need a more careful, kinder management".and tried to solve that by recruiting a.woman CEO without changing the culture you wouldn't fix anything. Since only an unusually risk taking, woman could get to that level anyway. In the case of wars caused by capitalism, imperialisme,.need for resources would capitalism/imperialisme/unfair distribution stay the same without men? Because then we might still see war.

I suspected as much, you can't.

You should read The Power (or maybe watch as I think there was a tv series based on the book). The premises is what happens if women have or develop an additional power/ability to hurt men. Depressingly, we become the dominant sex and basically act just like men do now, treating them like objects, committing acts of violence and general abuses of power. It's an interesting read if you're having these thoughts!! (Obvioualy fiction but an interesting take on it all)

The reason men are the dominant sex is because they are the dominant sex!
In other words they dominate us because they have the power to do so, of course women would become the dominant sex if they had the ability to physically dominate and overpower men!

I certainly think there's a lot of people society could do without for a number of reasons, and while a lot of them definitely would be men (because why are there just so many absolutely fucking useless arseholes out there?) not all of them would be.

If you think all women are lovely and all men are bad, then go and work in a child abuse job for a while. It might open your eyes and mind.

Jeez. 🤷‍♀️

1. I don’t think that all men are bad/ all
   women are lovely, nor did I say that.

2. What’s a child abuse job? If you mean a job where child protection is involved…maybe I do?

Ooft. A lot to unpack here, possibly too much for MN. Will just say…not sure it’s legal to go around physically threatening people into submission anymore…

I shall check that out, thank you for the recommendation! This is turning into a bit of a book club, love it ☺️

"Why would anyone choose to have a male child?"

Because males have built you a world which has allowed you to be utterly oblivious and take for granted that our material comfort is built on the back of thier blood and sweat. In any other place and time, male children are the preference because they tend to be the ones who create value, while females (arguably) consume it. The only reason you can entertain this nonsensical whimsy is because of men, go live 100 years ago or in a less developed part of the world, or even the UK 50 years from now - you will prefer a live with men in the family, who will do things so you don't have to. Also - to see how a gynocracy would function in practice just look at the vicious interpersonal politics/bullying you see in any female dominated workplace/organisation (above a certain size) and see how inhumane these are.

Nope, it would be awful.

I agree with you, I also like (decent) men (except I like swimming in the sea and campfires and hanging out in female-only groups as well!)