Hacker News Reader

Comment by moosey | Hacker News Reader

Although I'm male, I live my life surrounded by women and have a large focus on women's issues. I also see the writing on the wall: IVF technologies that are being developed today will further erode the value of men in most if not all non-socially conservative societies. I predict large numbers of women in single, cohabitating, or lesbian arrangements having children together because large numbers of men have proven themselves insufferable. I certainly know I have demonstrated as much in the past.

Men capable of rethinking their relationship with women and what it means to be a male, rather than a man, I imagine will do fine in the coming social upheaval.

View on HN

I don’t think reducing the value of men or women to their reproductive traits is a healthy outlook.

Additionally, the same technology level that could make men reproductively useless could do the same for women. In reality, neither will happen.

I could see lesbian parenting becoming more common with greater social acceptance.

Single or cohabiting though? As a recent parent, I doubt it. Raising children remains extremely challenging, and significantly easier if you have a committed partner for it. There's no way my wife would be able to go on, say, a 10-day business trip to Laos or a 3-day industry conference if I weren't holding down the fort at home, or for that matter able to get to the gym tonight if I weren't picking our son up from daycare, taking him to gymnastics and cooking dinner for him.

How a couple chooses to split up the labor in their relationship is their business, but the fact that there's more than enough labor for a couple isn't going to change regardless of technology.

I think GP is talking about a James Holden or an It Takes A Village Scenario. Where one child or group of children has a larger pool of guardians looking out for them. Doesn’t even have to be that exotic. My aunt’s neighborhood took it in turns to take all the kids one day a week, so the other parents had a few days for their own stuff and appointments.

What you basically said is that women > men - [physical advantages, reproductive necessities]. You didn't explain why.

Women, collectively (at least in the sphere of the "public conversation"), are growing increasingly tired of dealing with men and their idiosyncracies. Or rather, they are realizing there are alternatives to silently accepting the errant behavioral traits.

No one is making an absolute value claim of the two genders, so your comment is at best begging a divisive question that isn't relevant here.

Your assertion is extremely divisive. It implies female behavior is the norm (men and their idiosyncrasies) and that male behavior is errant.

Women have plenty of idiosyncrasies and errant behavior, too.

Whataboutism already?

No one is challenging your claim either. Women are capable of making subjective value judgments and many who are willing to talk about it are demonstrating them.

Whataboutism would imply I was trying to refute your value judgement. I was pointing out how divisive they are.

You could swap the two and your words still holds true. It means nothing. There is no substance to what you said. There's even some group, Maga I think it is, there is no equivalent for women. Who's getting sick of who?

All I see is individuals being more choosey. People ghost both ways now a day. No gender does it more than the other.

I believe you've been brainwashed, time for you to quit what seems like a pretty toxic female environment.

Possible, though I've read complaints about the reverse as well. That more men don't feel they need women in their lives anymore, despite being straight, because of, well, porn.

The MGTOW movement is a thing.

Downvotes aside, women deciding en masse that they no longer want to be around men and choosing IVF to have children (just daughters I guess) is about as likely as men deciding en masse that MGTOW is for them. Sure, some small subset of people might go that route but that’s not going to become normal for either gender. Humans have a fairly strong impulse to bond with someone they find sexually attractive.

Systematic devaluation of half of the human population can't be healthy. What's the point of engaging in a society that doesn't value us?

> Men capable of rethinking their relationship with women and what it means to be a male, rather than a man

And what does this mean, exactly?

This is some pretty severe self-loathing. You should find yourself a better environment if this is what you’re being told.

> Men capable of rethinking ... what it means to be a male, rather than a man

What does this even mean?

I agree we'll sees a swing in political narratives from 'strong man 1% wield fire' to minorities to lgbt and the great mother. It's already begun, reddit is bathed in it. We might see a loud minority of lesbians start bra burning or whatever as a political story in a few years. But when it comes to statements about large scale social changes from disruptive technology causing a political change one needs to be more careful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com