I think it would be extraordinarily and astonishingly difficult, if not impossible, to keep things going if half of humanity disappeared.

I think this argument seems to me to be more about technical capabilities rather than societal dysfunction – I’ll freely admit that taking away 50% of people of any gender makeup would cause widespread dysfunction. But in the modern world, all the skills that exist in the male population also exist in the female population, and there would be no catastrophic technical challenges that women as a group would be unable to meet.

I feel like I’ve stumbled in to an episode of I Love Lucy.

I feel it’s also worth pointing out that there are billions of people today with at best limited access to modern technology. The sudden loss of all the men in the world would be the greatest tragedy in human history, leaving no community and no family unaffected. But if this caused all the toilets to stop working and all the electric lights to go out (and it wouldn’t) then plenty of women wouldn’t even notice that part because they never had these things to begin with.

I’m talking about anything that requires a warm body. Things would crash, and crash hard. Every system we have on the planet requires people. No, I don’t think we would keep the lights on and the toilets running. I also think it’s funny upthread when someone seemed to say that losing hospitals would be no big deal.

The world would crash, and crash hard. Luckily, it’s not going to happen. Whew! Now maybe we can talk about stuff that can and does.

Ah, so the only jobs women do today are pointless.
I think we’ve found the source of the problem, folks.
Have fun getting nursing help, to mention a somewhat useful traditionally female job.

A quick check shows that about 32% of doctors are women, while only 9% of nurses are men.

I edited my post:

I agree about societal dysfunction, but the original assertion was meant as a shot at the technical capabilities at women, and it was a false and bullshit assertion.

They could start driving trucks tomorrow. And much of nursing is a literally shitty job.

I don’t understand why there’s something wrong with women and/or feminism if more women don’t drive trucks. Or why truck driving is all of a sudden a shitty job that is, I guess, punishment for men?

This thread seems to have turned into “Let’s bash blue collar jobs!” I’m not going to join in that. Lots of jobs out there I don’t want to do. I’d rather be shot out of a cannon than be a teacher or a nurse or a truck driver or work in a bridal shop (again). But I was a roustabout for a couple of years, and I’d choose that over nursing in a heartbeat. I’ve known lots of truck drivers and delivery people. Some loved it. Some hated it. Some made great money. Some barely scraped by. I’m not going to sneer at any of them for their jobs.

First, women do blue collar jobs. Spend some time on an interstate and you’ll see women driving trucks. Second, jsgoddess is right. Now we’re debating the desirability of blue collar jobs. We got here because LK refused to ever admit that he argued through implication that women are incapable of doing these jobs.

And we, as a collective, cannot leave it be.

I think it is very easy for a woman to feel she must help the man in the situation do whatever he wants to do or else things might get ugly.

I don’t think that applies to the Schumer incident, as she describes it herself.

In a broader context, I’d argue that what’s easy might not be right. Women - and all people - should speak up if they find themselves in a sexual situation where they’re not comfortable.

What I care much more about is helping people to accurately articulate their views by helping them think through the implications and apply them to real-life cases.

Yeah, me too. That’s why, when I get a chance, I want to take a closer look at the affirmative consent laws in CA and NY. Because they seem like a titanic failure, on the part of legislators, to think through the implications of what they’re doing, and to apply them to real-life cases.


That’s just an opinion piece from a quick google search, and I hope very much that it’s wrong.

If I were forced to “spot the hypocrite,” then since to my mind hypocrisy is an attribute of individual people rather than of theories or doctrines, I would need to go look at individual people and find out if there are individual people who will, even on reflection, insist (for example) that no one can consent to sex after drinking and also insist that sober women who have sex with inebriated men are not rapists.

I understand your point, and I’m not especially interested in trying to argue you out of it. But I think it’s fair to criticize political groups or movements for hypocrisy, as well as individuals. For example, I think it’s hypocritical of Republicans to go nutty on the subject of welfare, while many of those same Republicans happily cash their Social Security checks and enjoy the benefits of Medicare. Especially considering that “welfare” represents such a tiny amount of money, compared to what those other programs consume.

I say tons of dumb things. But I don’t think I’m wrong on this particular point.

ETA: If you think I am wrong, advance an argument that shows me that.

There are hundreds of thousands of female engineers in the US, and millions of intelligent and resourceful women, and as a group these many millions of women would be able to meet these technical challenges – just as hundreds of thousands of male engineers plus millions of intelligent and resourceful men would.

Here you go.

Because he never argued that, through implication or otherwise.

You got that right, Sista’!

The dumbness did not come the initial claim–clearly the loss of half of humanity would inflict serrious harm on the remaining half, regardless how one divides the lost from the survivors. (Although your fear of cockroaches comment was utterly stupid.)

The dumbness is the result of the lack of meaning in the observation. So, women are not petitioning to get more women accepted as truck drivers and garbage collectors. So what. No one in the MRA movement is complaining that too few men are working as hotel maids, Walmart cashiers, or medical records typists that are all dominated by women at low pay grades.

It has no serious relationship to your flawed OP. It was a meaningless claim made more silly by your dumb cockroach aside that you have hunkered down and defended to no purpose but pride of authorship.

No. I don’t think they’re incapable of doing those things. I think that they prefer to do other things.


If memory serves - and I’m happy to be corrected, it’s been a long thread - I brought up the 92% occupational death gap as one piece of evidence supporting the argument that feminism is not about equality, but about what’s best for women.

It is also a piece of evidence that supports my hypothesis of “male disposability”. (You can look at the OP, again, if you want to see the whole argument.)

At some point, someone linked to a feminist panel discussion, the topic of which had something to do with men. The topic was something like “Are Men Needed Anymore?”

According to the link, the feminists decided that they (we) aren’t.

I responded by saying something to the effect that if men actually disappeared overnight, those same feminists would wake up in a world that was entirely different than the one they live in now. One without the benefits of all the dangerous hard work that millions of men do, in order to make the lives the more privileged part of our population possible. To me, it seemed especially relevant, because the feminists in the panel appeared to be part of the more privileged part of our population. It was also relevant because it revealed the strange, myopic world that privileged feminists live in - one where food magically appears on grocery shelves, where lights “just work” without anybody making it happen, and where lowly working class men are just losers.

Do you think feminism encourages women to take whatever job they want to have?

Do you think society at large encourages women to take whatever job they want to have?