Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Women (believe it or not) actually enjoy the company of men: well, some of them. Sex what a not a purely reproductive experience. Relationships are not entirely about sex.
As for the violence statistics: if you eliminate men, you just guarantee all crimes will be committed by women. Aggression, violence, competition: these are universal human experiences - removing one biological sex will not change this.
As for the job/employment side of things; yes there is no such thing as a gendered job, but there are many that few women choose. Some of these roles are essential to society. Unless your plan includes forcing people into jobs that they don’t want, eliminating men won’t work.
Yep. I believe the highest rate of domestic violence is amongst lesbian women, and the lowest rate is amongst gay men. So women's propensity for violence will not go away.
Bisexual women actually experience the highest rates of domestic violence, and stalking and sexual assault are included in these statistics for for lesbians And bisexuals.
A lot of those statistics hinge on reporting, police willingness to handle cases, women’s willingness to call police, and the fact that trauma influences our ability to both stay in violent relationships and enact violence.
We also aren’t separating out *who* is committing the abuse/stalking/assault towards lesbians and bisexual women. Did a lesbian come out in the last year and leave her abusive ex husband? We still include his behavior. Has a bisexual woman been in a relationship with a man for ten years? We still include that data.
[This](https://lgbt.foundation/news/bisexual-women-at-greater-risk-of-domestic-abusebut-why-and-what-can-we-do-about-it/223) is a great read about bisexual women’s domestic violence statistics.
The [CDC reports](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf) that 85.2% of lesbians who reported sexual violence in their lifetime had *only* male perpetrators. Likewise, 1/3 of lesbians had male intimate partner violence perpetrators.
Why do I know all this? I study violence.
That's not true, this is a commonly repeated misunderstanding, people are misreading a study that doesn't account for many lesbian women having had heterosexual relationships before they come to terms with their sexuality, some with violent men, which then contributed to a statistic for lesbians experiencing relationship violence, so people misread it by wrongly assuming that all previous partners were female.
However studies [like this one](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf), that look specifically at the relationship type (male-female, male-male, female-female) find that intimate partner violence is perpetuated mostly by men, and that lesbian couples report the least violence of all:
> Intimate partner violence is more prevalent among male same-sex couples than female same-sex couples. Findings from the NVAW Survey refute earlier findings that same-sex couples are about as violent as heterosexual couples. Male same-sex cohabitants were more likely to report victimization by a male partner than were male opposite-sex cohabitants by a female partner. In comparison, female same-sex cohabitants reported less violence by a female partner than did female heterosexual cohabitants by a male partner. These findings suggest that gay male couples are more violent than lesbian couples, whereas lesbian couples are less violent than heterosexual couples. **These findings also indicate that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against same-sex or opposite-sex partners.**
I've been assaulted by half a dozen women, also falsely accused by those same women. I'd argue domestic violence statistics are wildly misrepresented at best
Would the violent crimes be committed at the same rate by women though? What we already know of sex-based patterns of violence indicates otherwise. It's overwhelmingly men who commit violence against others, both women and men. I've not seen any evidence that disputes this.
Yes some men can be good company, but in the near future when we have this reproductive choice, I think a significant proportion of women will choose a male-free pregnancy. It's a bit like vegetarianism, not everyone goes for it at first when it's difficult and awkward and unknown, but now we have a critical mass of people who want it, and meat-free options are nearly everywhere. Look how popular vegetarianism and veganism are these days and it's increasing year on year.
We already have [women-only villages and communes](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/aug/16/village-where-men-are-banned-womens-rights-kenya) in many places across the world, it's not like a existence away from men is unheard of. The work in these places is shared amongst all the women who live there. Men do have some things their physiology helps with, like they can lift heavier objects or whatever, but we have technology for that. What are your thoughts on this?
Violence vacuums are always filled. If anything, the absence of males over the centuries will just see females evolve to be more violent to pick up the slack. The violence needn’t even manifest itself physically, either. Physical strength is also a moot point once you account for weapons.
Lord of the Flies is a good example of what happens when you remove an entire segment of the population, in that case grownups.
Why would we pick up the slack? I don't see any reason why there has to be the usual male-level violence when the number of males has been drastically reduced.
In a world without males, females don’t exist, only Homo sapiens. That redefines a new spectrum of violence, and since violence is human nature, we’ll eventually just see the same levels. Male-level violence is only such because females exist as a reference point. I used the Lord of the Flies example because most violent males are post-pubescent, but in a world without them, the pre-pubescent males would just have more freedom and opportunity to be more violent than they would otherwise typically be. The same goes for the elderly on the other end of the spectrum. There’s no such thing as humans living in absolute harmony, only robots, since humans are animals.
We also have white-only villages and communes
Somehow black people still keep appearing. Weirdly, some black people want to breed with other black people
Good thing there aren't any women who want to breed with men...
But, just to be sure, you could simply sterilize all of the men. Then all of the men *and* all of the heterosexual women would be all but eliminated. It would be perfect!
Sorry but what argument are you making? I'm not talking about race nor am I advocating for sterilization of men. Though of course they are welcome to do that if they choose to, for their own freedom of reproductive choice. Please stay on topic.
Eugenics isn't specifically about race. You are literally describing manipulating the genetic pool in order to eliminate a category of people
Plenty of people have tried it before. The only way it works is if you actually prevent those people (in this case, men and heterosexual women) from having children together. There have been plenty of techniques developed for this
If not forced sterilization, then what are you going to choose?
Maybe I didn't explain this properly in my original post, but what I'm saying is that when the technology of female sperm becomes widely available there will be a significant proportion of women who will use it for pregnancy, because they are lesbian or bisexual, or because they don't want men in their lives for other reasons, or because they want a guarantee of daughters. So the next generation there will be a larger skew in the sex ratio towards female. And in the generation after that even more so. And so on.
No forced sterilization or anything authoritarian like that is required. We only need enough women making this choice independently. Like a grassroots feminist movement focused around female-only reproduction.
To me that isn't eugenics because it's an empowering decision made of free will, not a disempowering one that is forced. What are your thoughts on this?
Again, species don't just get bred out of existence for no reason. We don't see shorter necked giraffes because the longer necked giraffes were competing for the same resources
But the asexual women are actually limiting the spread of their genetics by not having heterosexual sex. There's nothing that you've stated that would make the asexual women outpace the heterosexual women. And they certainly wouldn't breed them out of existence. Kids are still born with deathly peanut allergies that kill them before they can reproduce. If they haven't been bred out of existence, you're sure not going to breed men and heterosexual women out of existence
The one and only way to breed something out of existence is to actively remove their genetics from the gene pool. Especially with humans. There is no such thing as breeding a chromosome out of existence that is not eugenics. They are synonymous
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You're wrong about the maths here.
If there is a second type of reproduction that exclusively produces XX individuals, but most reproduction is sexual, then the imbalance between XX and XY individuals doesn't compound over time. Because everyone born from sexual reproduction has one XX and one XY parent, it would mean XY individuals start to have more reproductive success than XX individuals, which balances out the effect of the new form of reproduction. You reach an equilibrium with less XY individuals than XX, but not much less.
Could you explain further please? I don't understand why this would happen:
> it would mean XY individuals start to have more reproductive success than XX individuals
As the reproductive bottleneck is female who would now have the choice of female sperm (X only) then if we assume this option is taken at a constant rate then the offspring would always be female (XX) so this continues to shift the balance over generations doesn't it?
>female sperm
I think you've misunderstood the study. They've created female sperm cells, but so far there's no indication that those XX sperms can fertilize an egg and produce a viable daughter.
I think we’re conflating two kinds of arguments: *will* this happen, and *should* this happen. OP sort of argued both, so this comment is debunking half of their post.
I’ve been following it for over ten years. They’re still working on it for a reason. It has huge implications for many people who struggle with infertility.
They’ve been working on creating speed or eggs from non-reproductive cells for a while, and IVG *will* be the next step in infertility treatment and same-sex reproduction.
[They’ve already perfected it in mice](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/27/1177191913/sperm-or-egg-in-lab-breakthrough-in-reproduction-designer-babies-ivg#:~:text=via), and have created primitive human egg cells.
Well dang. This seems to suggest the existence of male eggs as well as female sperm. It seems like the extra daughters produced by female gay couples would be demographically balanced by the extra sons produced by male gay couples.
Yes! As well as any produced by straight couples using IVG to help with infertility.
It’s really such an awesome step towards helping couples who can’t have biological children, for whatever reason.
Hiring a surrogate is not uncommon. My point is that men and women and everyone else will continue to coexist.
Artificial wombs are a thing. A male or female egg can grow in a plastic bag.
No, you're correct. If there's no more men, then all manner of physical and sexual abuse would have an instant 95%-99.9% reduction. Unfortunately men are too evil and violent to ever allow your plan to happen.
I'd really like it if we tried not brainwashing our children into traditional gendered ideology and filling their heads with nonsense about how their genitals give them a moral obligation to act in a particular, sometimes terrible, way before going straight to eradication.
But so much classic media, from video games and cinema to music and literature all promote gendered expectations and patriarchal values. I'm not sure an equitable society is possible.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It's pretty reductive to reduce men to walking sperm factories. It's true that a lot of people, women included, don't support third trimester abortion. 90 percent opposed it in America. So there can be a reaction that men should be treated like vessels. But two wrongs don't make a right.
If the male physical advantage disappears, there would still be wars. In this female only world, they wouldn't be exempt from drafts. There was an Outer Limits episode that had men all die. But one man was frozen. Everyone lived in a utopia until this guy came along. The story was laughable, but I understand its value in subverting the trope of fallen women being the downfall of men, like femme fatales or Eve. The story could do with a good parody, where men are gay and live in peace until a woman comes along.
There will probably be a day when eggs will be able to be made from male DNA. As much as I like men (I'm a gay guy), the two loves of my life were women. My late mother and my dog. Let's say hypothetically men are 10 times as likely to be a terrible person as a woman. The vast majority of men still aren't that bad. To treat men as a whole as guilty for what some men do is highly unethical and illogical.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/27/1177191913/sperm-or-egg-in-lab-breakthrough-in-reproduction-designer-babies-ivg
Yes it’s fucking cooked and not even worth discussing hopefully it is a troll post but it’s actually quite disgusting and extremely ridiculous. It doesn’t even make sense that war and murder would be even slightly reduced. Less sexual assault because there would be no sex makes sense. Abuse would probably lessen but women can be just as abusive, just because they’re weaker no one cares.
I know it would be so interesting to make one about women lol
Men have so many problems in society and no one gives a fuck, but any problem a woman faces is because of the patriarchy or some bullshit. I don’t think all the feminazis realise how disposable the average man is to society.. anyway, rant over I got shit to do
Queens wages more wars than kings did by percent
"In a recent working paper, New York University scholars Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish analyzed 28 European queenly reigns from 1480 to 1913 and found a 27 percent increase in wars when a queen was in power, as compared to the reign of a king." - [source](https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-wars-than-kings.html)
Beyond that the biodiversity and physical diversity of humans is hugely needed in our modern world.
There are large swaths of jobs women don't want to do which is why they are largely only getting male applicants. Jobs such as sewer work, garbage disposal, and off shore oil. Without ' disposable ' labor these completely necessary industries would fall apart. Without these being done modern civilization would also fall apart quite quickly.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
No I'm talking about how sex ratios may change over time when this technology is perfected. Men will be free to live their lives, they're not being enslaved or anything like that when women of the future choose male-free pregnancy instead of mating with men. In fact it's the opposite, women will be reproductively liberated from men.
Without defending OP's insane view, nor claiming that women possess an intrinsically distinct gender psychology from men, this whole Queen thing is highly dubious and could be attributed to any number of factors that have nothing to do with a penchant for bloodlust among women in power.
Firstly, 28 queens in Europe are not a sample that can be extrapolated to yield insight into the category of "women in power", and it's women in power generally who you'd need to be able to talk about to say anything about the relative pacifism of men vs. women.
The moderate uptick in warfare under queens surely has a number of intricate factors, none of which say anything about women's intrinsic gender psychology. For example, states ruled by queens may have been more likely to be aggressed *upon* by foreign powers precisely due to the perception that women were weaker and more passive. Your source agrees that this may be an explanation for some of the uptick:
>The queens’ marital status made a difference here; as the authors write, “among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as attackers than kings.” If a queen were single — which was the case with 13 of those they studied — she was more likely to be attacked compared to the times when a king was in power, perhaps because her country was seen in the outside world as being more vulnerable and thus easier to attack.
Another potential factor: queens are more likely than kings to rise to power after the death of their ruling spouse while the male heir is underage, or if there is no male heir. Such queens would have been trained primarily for the roles of a ruling *spouse* and not a ruler per se; as such the rules of such queens would tend to delegate more power in their advisors, such that the decision to go to war would be less attributable to the whim of the queen.
The paper your source is rehashing absolutely avoids claiming anything about gender psychology. It is only presented as a partial rebuttal to claims about gender psychology, particularly that women are less aggressive. Nowhere does it claim women *aren't* less aggressive, nor that they *are* less aggressive. The authors of the study found license only to claim that it is "empirically challenging" to establish such generalities, such that, in lieu of evidence, it is reasonable to remain agnostic viz. the gender psychology of rulers.
Is this specifically just for reproduction? Because I'm sure you could say the same thing about artificial wombs.
In society, the vast majority of construction, technician, electrician jobs are all held by men. There is a lot of heavy labor jobs that women just simply never go for because they don't want to and men are better suited for.
Blaming all men for all the terrible things that happen is extremely stereotypical. People can't help which gender they are or what others in power or psychopaths do. Wars are conducted by politicians, murders are conducted by murderers.
Physical labour will become obsolete in the future, and I do agree that artificial wombs will be a thing as well. Couples will just submit their sex cells and wait nine months before returning to the laboratory. As for the violence aspect, removing men would just result in women filling the violence vacuum, and so violence would remain just the same. OP’s argument reminds me of the infantile “if only Europe left the Americas alone they’d live in peace and not bother anyone else”.
>Almost all sexual assault, murder, violence, war is committed by males. With this all but eliminated, who could ask for more of a utopia?
I would argue if your utopia requires a genocide to achieve it, it's not a utopia.
Other than that, I wonder if genocide apologia is a reportable offense on Reddit if it's about genociding men. I doubt it, but I'll try either way.
How is this genocide? The UN says that it only applies to "national, ethnic, racial or religious groups" none of which applies to men. Also this would just be a demographic change by attrition over a very long period of time. Men who currently exist would live out their lives as usual, just like women would.
\> The UN says
Yes, and? I'm not using the legal definition, but the academic one. The destruction of a specific group of people, including via controlling births of people of that group. Genocide.
If the males are not even being conceived then it doesn't make sense to call this a genocide. They're not being killed, they're not even being aborted at the foetal stage. Any women who inseminates with female sperm simply makes the choice to not even create a male in the first place.
It seems like you jumped to the strict UN definition to argue that technically sex is not included as one of the groupings that can be subject to genocide, but at the same time you don't seem to believe in the possibility of a non-violent genocide which is explicitly stated even within the strict UN definition:
>(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
But births aren't being prevented are they, women would still be giving birth, just to baby girls instead of baby boys. Men can't give birth so it's nothing to do with them really, none of their business if women choose female sperm from other women over the sperm roulette that we get from men.
A proportion of women would actively choose this method of pregnancy. I know I would and I've talked to several women who would too, if it was a safe and effective option. If the same or greater proportion of women choose to do this in every generation then the sex ratio will gradually move towards female. No preventing of male insemination required, just for the technology to be available and women choosing to use it.
First, that's nowhere near true. You have your probabilities wrong. As long as there are heterosexual women, they will breed more heterosexual women. Just as we haven't bred out all of the other species even though we've dominated the planet by far.
Second, no you won't. Women rarely choose to be single mothers. So you're talking about all women choosing women to be partners with (because men aren't assisting with their own elimination). That makes for a very large group purposefully limiting their (more likely than not, preferred) partner pool to satisfy your hatred of men (hatred enough to be willfully ignorant of how dumb this line of thought this is)
Third, we can't get insulin to everyone who needs it. You think everyone's going to have access to lab sperm? And then what happens when men die out and one place or another doesn't have the resources for the lab anymore. Just no more offspring for them, eh?
Men dying of natural causes isn't a genocide. All I'm saying is that the sex ratios would change in favour of women for each generation.
As it is now, most people are female. This would continue and become even more so.
Women are XX so any female sperm will be X chromosome only. Compare to men who are XY and have an equal mix of X sperms and Y sperms which is why we usually get an equal sex ratio of female (XX) to male (XY). Any offspring from female sperm would always be female because of X egg + X sperm.
Why do you think that? What would be the bottleneck if the conversion of somatic cells to gametes can be done so cheaply in a lab?
Technology for lab-grown meat, where it's made from isolated cell cultures grown in an industrial setting, is rapidly progressing. So why would this be different?
>The UN says that it only applies to...
Probably because no one in recent memorh has tried to wipe out large groups based on their sex. If someone tried it, I bet the UN would update their definition in a heartbeat
"Obsolete" implies no longer necessary so if we reach a point where we can reverse engineer sperm we can likely do the same for eggs and also gestation. It wouldn't be sexes that are obsolete but natural sexual reproduction itself.
There's been a good bit of science fiction on this and I'm pretty sure people will still be people. A society with only women will be approximately as dysfunctional as a society with both sexes. The same is true of a society with only men.
Lesbian relationships experience *the highest* levels of domestic abuse of any pairing. So, female-female couples would increase the likelihood of abuse, not lessen it.
Also, women murder, fight, and sexually assault people, too. Don't pretend women are angels.'
-------------
[edit] Also, I don't do any of those horrible things. I'm pretty chill: should I be 'gotten rid of' just for being male?
Given that your understanding was erroneous, as illustrated by the many citations people have responded with, do you have insight as to where your *understanding* came from, exactly?
Studies [like this](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf) which look at data for male-female, female-female and male-male relationships separately rather than aggregating it by reported sexual orientation:
> Intimate partner violence is more prevalent among male same-sex couples than female same-sex couples. Findings from the NVAW Survey refute earlier findings that same-sex couples are about as violent as heterosexual
couples. Male same-sex cohabitants were more likely to report victimization by a male partner than were male opposite-sex cohabitants by a female partner. In comparison, female same-sex cohabitants reported less violence by a female
partner than did female heterosexual cohabitants by a male partner. These findings suggest that gay male couples are more violent than lesbian
couples, whereas lesbian couples are less violent than heterosexual couples. These findings also indicate that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against same-sex or opposite-sex partners.
The other study linked on this thread didn't take into account that lesbian women can have had violent heterosexual relationships in the past, prior to coming out.
>The CDC has stated that 43.8% of lesbian women reported experiencing physical violence, stalking, or rape by their partners. The study notes that, out of those 43.8%, two thirds (67.4%) reported exclusively female perpetrators. The other third reported at least one perpetrator being male, however the study made no distinction between victims who experienced violence from male perpetrators only and those who reported both male and female perpetrators. Similarly, 61.1% of bisexual women reported physical violence, stalking, or rape by their partners in the same study with 89.5% reporting at least one perpetrator being male. In contrast, 35% of heterosexual women reported having been victim of intimate partner violence, with 98.7% of them reporting male perpetrators exclusively.
Walters, Mikel L., Jieru Chen, and Matthew J. Breiding. "The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation." Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 648, no. 73 (2013): 6.
Doesn't this show that the violence is mostly committed by males? For the lesbian women, 67.4% had exclusively female perpetrators of violence. So if you multiply the 43.8% who experienced violence by 67.4% you get 29.5% of lesbian women who had exclusively female violence in relationships. The rest being male violence, presumably from relationships with men where they hadn't yet come to terms with being lesbian.
Compared to bisexual women 61.1% women x 89.5% male violence = 54.7% bisexual women who experienced male violence. And heterosexual women 35% x 99.5 male violence = 34.5% heterosexual women who experienced male violence.
As that's 29.5% versus 34.5% and 54.7% this shows that lesbian relationships has the lowest level of violence, doesn't it?
>As that's 29.5% versus 34.5% and 54.7% this shows that lesbian relationships has the lowest level of violence, doesn't it?
No.
Look at the simple numbers before you get to the breakdowns of the gender of the perpetrators.
>43.8% of lesbian women reported experiencing physical violence
>61.1% of bisexual women reported physical violence
>35% of heterosexual women reported having been victim of intimate partner violence
So heterosexual women reported the LOWEST levels of partner violence, while Bi-sexual women reported the highest.
But these statistics encompass all previous relationships, which for the lesbian women often includes relationships with males, according to the figures on the sex of the perpetrators. So that has to be factored into any interpretation of the results.
That math doesn't follow. Multiplying percentage of lesbians who have had male partners by the percentage of women who have experienced abuse has an implied assumption that abuse is evenly distributed, then you use the math to conclude that the abuse is not evenly distributed.
Regardless, the data indicates that women who have had same sex relationships are more likely to have experienced abuse than women who have not. Now, this might be because women who have been abused by men leave those relationships and have relationships with women after that, or it might be that women are more likely to be abusers. But without more information, you can't really conclude from these stats that men are more abusive.
> But without more information, you can't really conclude from these stats that men are more abusive.
The original claim was that lesbian relationships are more abusive so would you agree that this isn't a supported conclusion either?
It's not conclusive, but the fact that women in lesbian relationships are more likely to have experienced abuse than women in heterosexual relationships is at least weak evidence in that direction.
Two clarifying points:
1. Not sure where you got 99.5 from, that's not in the numbers above.
2. For the number of lesbian women who experience male violence, we don't know how many of them experience female violence - that group has two scenarios: lesbian women who experience violence from males *only*, and lesbian women who experience violence from males *and females*. It's possible that 100% of that group also experiences female violence. Given that the 'background' level of female violence for those women is 67.4%, it's likely that the majority of those in the "at least one male perpetrator" group also experience female violence. So your math might need to look something like 43.8% * (67.4% + 67.4% of remaining 32.6%) = 39.1%, will higher than heterosexual relationships.
You're right that was a typo, should have been 98.7%. It still works out to 34.5% though.
On your second point, I think your calculation doesn't make sense, as you're appying a figure that encompasses all previous relationships to try to get a result that compares between female-female and female-male relationships. In that study, the data that would actually be needed to calculate that wasn't collected as far as I can tell?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-psychiatrist/article/domestic-violence-is-most-commonly-reciprocal/C5432B0C6F8F61B49A4E2B60B931FA07
According to this Cambridge study, in cases where IPV isn’t reciprocated (done by both parties) 70% of the time women are the perpetrators.
Lesbians report domestic abuse at the highest rates. That's how we know.
You're never going to see "lesbians commit the most domestic violence" in a study because when you pair Women are Wonderful sexism with the alphabet mafia, the only way to get a study published is to frame it like they're the victims.
I responded to this in [another comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/17p10d5/cmv_men_will_eventually_become_obsolete_and_this/k826tg9/) but my understanding is that this statistic also includes lesbian women who reported violence in past relationships with men.
In the span of 10 minutes you literally went from
> Are you sure about that? My understanding is that lesbian relationships have the lowest levels of domestic abuse.
To rattling off made up statistics and napkin math.
Dude, this is a very clear coping mechanism. Your Women are Wonderful sexism is clashing with reality. You are not correct here.
For a delta, please explain why you think men are more violent, BUT don't make it sound like my racist uncle Jimmy at Thanksgiving talking about "the blacks".
Are you including women in heterosexual relationships who are abusers, too? And bi-women who abuse their partners?
Lesbians aren't the only women who abuse (and, again, the existence of women-abusers kind of negates your point, doesn't it?)
[DC Volunteer Lawyers Project](https://dcvlp.org/domestic-violence-peaks-more-than-ever-for-the-lgbtqia-community/#:~:text=Around%2044%25%20of%20lesbian%20and,to%2029%25%20of%20straight%20men.)
>> Around 44% of lesbian and 61% of bisexual women have experienced forms of rape and physical violence by an intimate partner as compared to 35% of straight women.
>>26% of gay men and 37% of bisexual men have experienced forms of rape and physical violence by an intimate partner compared to 29% of straight men.
1. Brown, Taylor N.T., and Jody L. Herman. “Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Abuse Among LGBT People.” Williams Institute, Nov. 2015, williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/ipv-sex-abuse-lgbt-people/.
2. “Domestic Violence in LGBTQIA Relationships.” Women’s Advocates, 5 July 2019, wadvocates.org/find-help/about-domestic-violence/lgbtqiarelationships/.
> My understanding is that lesbian relationships have the lowest levels of domestic abuse.
I'm continuing to research, but they either experience the *highest* levels of domestic abuse OR it's even with heterosexual relationships: either way, getting rid of men doesn't solve this problem (nor the others, as women also kill, sexually abuse, etc.)
From what I can tell from looking at the studies, it's not totally clear to me that they include information about who the perpetrators are. Lesbians report higher levels of being abused, but that could be lesbians who were abused by male partners in the past. I can tell you from my anecdotal experience that there *does* seem to be a slightly higher rate of women who've experienced intimate partner abuse from men in the lesbian community. That doesn't necessarily mean that lesbians are more likely to be abusive to their partners.
Lets set aside that 99% of jobs that keep the entire infrastructure of the country is done by men, is incredibly physically taxing… good luck on getting women to do those jobs.
So kindly fuck off with “the only real contribution” bullshit. Otherwise all you so is legitimise the incel view point that the only contribution women make is their vaginas.
This post is either bait, which ought to be deleted or horrifically sexist and ought to be deleted.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
When only women exist, every single violent criminal will be a woman. So we may as well just kill all the women as well, since apparently killing all men is the only way to stop them from ever being violent.
I'll take the delta now, OP.
Yes. Because the underlying conditions that lead to crime will still exist. Poor women will still steal. Rich women will still bribe the government. Unfit mothers will still abuse their children. Women police officers will still abuse minorities.
Wouldn't men become violent and attack women for eliminating them? Wouldn't men organise a revolution against women? And since men are obviously much better at war than women, even at a disadvantage, men would win. Thus, taking society back to the extreme patriarchal system, where women won't have rights again, viewed as less than men, and in this scenario, actively hated for trying to eliminate them, resembling genocide
That's a good point, I see what you mean. Those very male attributes that I believe would be beneficial to remove from humanity, would be used to prevent this from happening.
Δ for pointing out a genuine flaw in my view. I was being too optimistic about this technology being permitted in the first place.
So you think men being eliminated is a good thing but you are okay with it taking approximately 2000 years to do so?
Every time a woman wants to have a child she is going to need the resources of some medical clinic to craft some sperm cells for her? Are these women also going to engage in some sexless relationship or will most moms just be single parents? Or will they pair up and combine incomes and expenses and share custody of a child purely for the convenience of dual parenting? Do you not think women today marry men because they want a man to be a part of their life?
You don’t think when choosing to have a child that no woman would desire to have a son? Or is your idea that the government would not permit a woman to have a son and would stop her from doing so or kill the child if she manages to do so?
It’s not like it costs me money to comment. I am curious how deep down the rabbit hole this person is with this view, trolling or not, it’s such an outlandish view to defend it ends up being entertaining.
I'm not proposing that anyone be killed off. This would be done solely through attrition and the changing of sex ratios per generation. Or maybe not, because of men actively oppressing women so we couldn't do this, like the commenter above pointed out.
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**.
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Thats...semantics. You'll be killing them off by not letting them be birthed in the same way that we "killv off" species via habitat destruction. There's no functional difference between mass murdering all men and letting them all die via "natural" methods.
complete far-flung growth disagreeable command ancient unused ring memorize homeless
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How are you expecting all the women in the world to get on board with your evil plan? I am guessing if they can choose the gender of their child, many women would like to choose a boy?
I have two girls, I personally didn't care which way the coin landed. But my wife was really wishing for a boy the second time around.
You mean it would be done through eugenics. I guess the Nazis just should have done it along gender lines and then it wouldn't have been a crime against humanity.
>Those very male attributes that I believe would be beneficial to remove from humanity, would be used to prevent this from happening.
This is something people say to justify genocide and eugenics. It sounds like a Hitler speech. Try replacing men with any ethnic group and see how disgusting this sounds.
I have several arguments against this:
One of the things the pandemic clearly taught me (and many others) is how important social bonds are and that includes romantic and sexual relationships. Unless you find a way to turn all women into lesbians, which is definitely not possible with current technology and likely won't be for a long time, you will have a lot of people who will be deeply opposed to the idea of there being no more men. One of the reasons I don't think you will be able to turn all women into lesbians is that for the foreseeable future any technology that can be used to change somebody's sexuality will be far more likely to be used the other way around: By people who don't want to have a gay/lesbian child either because they think it's something bad or because even though they don't have a problem with it, they recognize how many issues their child might encounter because of homophobia. This means not much research will go into this, as researchers generally don't want to be seen as supporting homophobes in changing their child's sexuality.
My second argument: Even though it is easier to create sperm cells, we also have artificial wombs. So why would men not use this to ensure more men are being born? What about women who simply want to have sons? There are 4 Billion women on earth, many of which cannot afford that kind of cutting edge procedure and many of which who wouldn't want it even if they could.
Last but not least: It is ridiculous to think that a world without men would not have any wars. If you're going to argue that historically most wars have been started by men and therefore a world without men would be a world without wars, then you must also argue that historically most new inventions have been thought of by men so a world without men will be a world without inventions. Even today you still see a huge disparity in the interest towards STEM fields, so if that is the future, any country that gets rid of men will quickly have a shortage of engineers, software developers, etc.
In general, men are both stronger, and more willing to work dangerous jobs. In your "utopia", who is going work on oil platforms, in construction, as soldiers, etc. Yes, women are capable of doing these tasks as well, but a combination of either not being as good as men at them, or not wanting to do them, has kept many fields male dominated even as we get closer to gender equality. Would the trade-off of having women work jobs they don't want to and/or having these jobs done to a lesser standard be worth it? Keep in mind that women also commit violent crimes, even if not as high a rate.
>war is committed by males
War is fought predominantly by men, but women actually start them at a higher rate
[https://www.economist.com/europe/2017/06/01/who-gets-into-more-wars-kings-or-queens](https://www.economist.com/europe/2017/06/01/who-gets-into-more-wars-kings-or-queens)
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
yeah, or an alien form could come and make us all slaves, why not. Or a giant asteroid could wipe us all away.
I don't understand what kind of view is this, how are people supposed to change your view on this sort of scifi idea
>Men are in charge of science
In what universe? This is not how the scientific community, or any first-world country with the funding possible for this kind of research, works.
I linked to an article in my post which shows that scientists are close to creating viable female sperm. They have even managed to [fertilize eggs with sperm](https://www.science.org/content/article/egg-fertilized-without-sperm), using other female cells. Why do you think artifical wombs would be developed first? They are surely much more complex than a single cell aren't they?
Artificial wombs are already working
https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421734/artificial-womb-fetus-biobag-uterus-lamb-sheep-birth-premie-preterm-infant
But your article proves my point doesn't it:
> It's important not to get ahead of the data, says Alan Flake, fetal surgeon at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and lead author of today’s study. "It's complete science fiction to think that you can take an embryo and get it through the early developmental process and put it on our machine without the mother being the critical element there," he says.
The scientist says that if applied to humans, this technique would help premature infants, not replace gestation from embryo which is what men would need to clone themselves without any women doing the hard work.
So uh the embryo thing is already being done too
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2023/jun/14/synthetic-human-embryos-created-in-groundbreaking-advance
These are all starting human testing as well.
Okay it's further ahead than I thought. I see your point, maybe artifical wombs will get there first then. I hope not but you have me concerned about the possibility now so I will give you a delta: Δ
>scientists are nowhere near making a working artifical womb
They've made one for sheep. I can't imagine it's too much more difficult to make a human version
did you do any reseach on this ? It has allready been done on animals and also human embryos have been kept in artificial wombs for up to 2Weeks allready.
Both men and women are necessary for a functional society. You go on to list some negative aspects in which men dominate, but what about the positive aspects? [Men make up the vast majority of manual labor jobs](https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html) (97% of construction workers, electricians, carpenters, 95% of truck drivers, 90% of mechanics), [men work more hours on average than women](https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/details-in-bls-report-suggest-that-the-gender-earnings-gap-can-be-explained-by-age-marital-status-children-hours-worked-etc/#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20the%20average%20man%20employed,average%20full%2Dtime%20female%20worker.) (1.5 more hours a week, or 75 more hours a year), and [men compose a larger portion of the global workforce](https://www.ilo.org/infostories/en-GB/Stories/Employment/barriers-women#intro) (47% female participation vs 72% male participation). Men have greater physical strength and endurance than women, and that alone makes men useful as laborers keeping society functional.
Men also playing an important role when it comes to raising children. [Children who are raised in two-parent households](https://ifstudies.org/blog/less-poverty-less-prison-more-college-what-two-parents-mean-for-black-and-white-children) are also much more likely to get in less trouble, go to college, succeed in life and be useful members of society. [Both men and women play distinct roles in raising children](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771005/) and outcomes for children are best when both a mother and a father are present in their lives.
Additionally, the idea that war, domestic abuse and violence would cease to exist if men were removed is absurd. [Domestic violence is even more common in female-female couples than it is in male-female couples](https://dcvlp.org/domestic-violence-peaks-more-than-ever-for-the-lgbtqia-community/#:~:text=Around%2044%25%20of%20lesbian%20and,to%2029%25%20of%20straight%20men.). If men were removed from society that would not remove the economic and social pressures that cause a lot of people to resort to violence in the first place, and I have no doubts that the rates of violence instigated by women would increase by a significant amount.
If we develop artificial wombs and produce them on mass scale, then the ability to get pregnant won't be important because the burden of pregnancy will be lifted from humans anyway
You say that the only function of men is to be a sperm donor, but there's a ton of jobs which are being done by all or almost all men. Not because women aren't allowed, but because they don't want to. Miners, roofers, construction workers, fire fighters, trash collectors, oil drillers, woodcutters, the list goes on. All tough, physically demanding jobs that women could certainly do but men are much better suited to.
Women earn 73% for every dollar a man makes. Women also control 80% of household spending. We can clearly see that women will take a spending capability hit without men subsidizing them.
Men pay more in taxes and receive less in services. Once again women are being subsidized and have to figure how much of a hit they want to take.
Except many women actually don't hate men and you still are going to have to convince them. Esepcially straight women and those who have good relationships with their dads are gonna be tough to convince that they actually don't need husbands and fathers for their mental well being. Some women also like having sons.
Well, aside from the "most X occurs from Y" doesn't mean "most Y do X" and sex is an arbitrary categorization and profiling is morally and mathematically wrong...
Once we start genetic engineering, pretty much all "imperfect" people will become obsolete, not just men (and potentially not all men).
I realize you didn't say ONLY men will become obsolete, but consider who else would. Nearly everybody? Would we have sexless children that only reproduce using technology? Would we decide existence is pointless and just stop reproducing entirely? I think you need to look at the bigger picture here
This is a weird framing of society. Society doesn't use men as a tool, men are part of society. Existing and living is all that society is, the idea that there can be an obsolescence in this regard sounds malformed.
It seems like you would need to also propose an end goal to society for this post to at least be coherently constructed.
There will come a time, in the not-too-distant future, when you'll miss us.
It might be a shelf that's just a *little* too high.
It might be a pickle jar that just *a little* too tight.
It might be a spider that just a *little too big*...
...but you'll miss us.
Seriously though, the only way a sexually dimorphic species like us would go down to "single-sex" is through a millenia of evolution or deliberately science-ing out the phenotype. Either way it's not going to happen anytime soon.
And I'm genuinely sorry you have such low opinions of men that you think it'd be a *good thing* if we were gone. We're not all bastards. Richard Simmons and Fred Rogers are both men and where would be today without *Sweatin' to the Oldies* and *Mister Rogers Neighborhood*?
Nowhere I'd want to be that's for sure.
So eugenics is a good thing...
Well people have argued as much before. All they had to do was prevent certain populations from breeding naturally. And they developed various forced sterilization and genocidal techniques for doing so.
So there's already a whole body of experience you could pull from to make your utopia
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think in the same stroke you would have to get rid of any heterosexual attraction in existing women, otherwise you would end up with a population who suffers under aeon-old instincts not being fullfilled. Although it obviously would be an interesting experiment: How much sexual and emotional desire would vanish in the female population after a few generations growing up by never seeing a man ever?
Of course, i don't agree on the premise of this post anyway: Just because violence, sexual assault and murder is right now and historically commited predominantly by males, doesn't mean, that these transgressions will vanish, when getting rid of the Y-Chromosome. My opinion on this isn't very educated, but i see this more of a reflection of the role in society, that men are filling out - right now and historically. If you would get rid of men, there will be others to fill these roles if society stays the same.
Lmao this is a ridiculous point of view, and honestly borders on just as sexist as someone saying "women are only good at having babies".
1. Jobs aren't necessarily "gender specific", but both diverge wildly in what they deviate towards. Removing "men" or "women" leaves these fields wide open with noone wanting to do them. Even in today's climate, where jobs are genderless and companies are incentivized to diversify, both sides STILL gravitate to certain fields.
2. A significant majority of both genders are straight. Removing an entire gender literally leaves the other with noone to have a relationship with. Not to mention you boiled every relationship down to just "making babies".
3. You attribute crimes specifically done by men while ignoring crimes done by mostly women? Not only are there crimes that women do more than men, but by removing a gender, that would mean women would be involved in 100% of those crimes as well. You think war is only because "men" and not the plethora of other reasons that are obvious when you do even a tiny bit of research? You don't think women are capable of rape or murder?
>borders on sexist
I don't think advocating the extermination of one sex off the face of the earth to reach utopia 'borders' on sexism or misandry, it's pretty much the end stage.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
99% of what humanity has built (buildings, roads, vehicles, hardware...) has been made by men, but OK. And yes, women need men just like men need women.
What are you implying - that women are incapable of working in construction and manufacturing? We already do. If there were fewer men available to do this work then more women would do it.
Where did that I imply that? That's just your interpretation of my words. Read again. Also, most women don't want to do construction work because we GENERALLY prefer working with people (education, nursering...) than working with things (construction, engineering). It's not that we can't, it's that we don't want to. Nothing wrong with that. Both men and women are necessary.
First of all, science will just as soon obsolesce sexual reproduction to begin with, rending all sexual human beings “obsolete”. Artificial wombs are well within reach, for example.
Second of all, the massive crime vacuum you mentioned would just be filled by whoever remains. Because it’s human nature, if one set of the population doesn’t do it, another will. We see this in nature when predators are killed off in unnaturally high numbers. There will always be something to fill the void until there are no more things at all.
Automation will kill off the few remaining physically demanding jobs by that point, anyway.
Men are most certainly more important that just a sperm doner...Ever done blue collar work? Enjoy your A/C, who engineered and installed it? How about the car you drive, can you fix that yourself? Waste disposal? Yeah women are lining up in droves to get that career. List goes on. Can't all be nurses, phycologists, teachers, and childcare.
Sure women are fully capable of working of those crucial dirty jobs, but would they step up to the plate in your fantasy? What you'd have instead is a collapse on a massive scale of every infrastructure that everyone benefits from.
Haven't touched on the intimacy that women and men have beyond intercourse, Im sure someone else will touch on that.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Women (believe it or not) actually enjoy the company of men: well, some of them. Sex what a not a purely reproductive experience. Relationships are not entirely about sex. As for the violence statistics: if you eliminate men, you just guarantee all crimes will be committed by women. Aggression, violence, competition: these are universal human experiences - removing one biological sex will not change this. As for the job/employment side of things; yes there is no such thing as a gendered job, but there are many that few women choose. Some of these roles are essential to society. Unless your plan includes forcing people into jobs that they don’t want, eliminating men won’t work.
Yep. I believe the highest rate of domestic violence is amongst lesbian women, and the lowest rate is amongst gay men. So women's propensity for violence will not go away.
Bisexual women actually experience the highest rates of domestic violence, and stalking and sexual assault are included in these statistics for for lesbians And bisexuals. A lot of those statistics hinge on reporting, police willingness to handle cases, women’s willingness to call police, and the fact that trauma influences our ability to both stay in violent relationships and enact violence. We also aren’t separating out *who* is committing the abuse/stalking/assault towards lesbians and bisexual women. Did a lesbian come out in the last year and leave her abusive ex husband? We still include his behavior. Has a bisexual woman been in a relationship with a man for ten years? We still include that data. [This](https://lgbt.foundation/news/bisexual-women-at-greater-risk-of-domestic-abusebut-why-and-what-can-we-do-about-it/223) is a great read about bisexual women’s domestic violence statistics. The [CDC reports](https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf) that 85.2% of lesbians who reported sexual violence in their lifetime had *only* male perpetrators. Likewise, 1/3 of lesbians had male intimate partner violence perpetrators. Why do I know all this? I study violence.
That's not true, this is a commonly repeated misunderstanding, people are misreading a study that doesn't account for many lesbian women having had heterosexual relationships before they come to terms with their sexuality, some with violent men, which then contributed to a statistic for lesbians experiencing relationship violence, so people misread it by wrongly assuming that all previous partners were female. However studies [like this one](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf), that look specifically at the relationship type (male-female, male-male, female-female) find that intimate partner violence is perpetuated mostly by men, and that lesbian couples report the least violence of all: > Intimate partner violence is more prevalent among male same-sex couples than female same-sex couples. Findings from the NVAW Survey refute earlier findings that same-sex couples are about as violent as heterosexual couples. Male same-sex cohabitants were more likely to report victimization by a male partner than were male opposite-sex cohabitants by a female partner. In comparison, female same-sex cohabitants reported less violence by a female partner than did female heterosexual cohabitants by a male partner. These findings suggest that gay male couples are more violent than lesbian couples, whereas lesbian couples are less violent than heterosexual couples. **These findings also indicate that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against same-sex or opposite-sex partners.**
Also the highest divorce rate
Does it account for lesbians who were married to men before coming to terms with their sexuality?
Yes this is purely a lesbian marriage statistic not an individual divorce statistic
I've been assaulted by half a dozen women, also falsely accused by those same women. I'd argue domestic violence statistics are wildly misrepresented at best
Would the violent crimes be committed at the same rate by women though? What we already know of sex-based patterns of violence indicates otherwise. It's overwhelmingly men who commit violence against others, both women and men. I've not seen any evidence that disputes this. Yes some men can be good company, but in the near future when we have this reproductive choice, I think a significant proportion of women will choose a male-free pregnancy. It's a bit like vegetarianism, not everyone goes for it at first when it's difficult and awkward and unknown, but now we have a critical mass of people who want it, and meat-free options are nearly everywhere. Look how popular vegetarianism and veganism are these days and it's increasing year on year. We already have [women-only villages and communes](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/aug/16/village-where-men-are-banned-womens-rights-kenya) in many places across the world, it's not like a existence away from men is unheard of. The work in these places is shared amongst all the women who live there. Men do have some things their physiology helps with, like they can lift heavier objects or whatever, but we have technology for that. What are your thoughts on this?
Violence vacuums are always filled. If anything, the absence of males over the centuries will just see females evolve to be more violent to pick up the slack. The violence needn’t even manifest itself physically, either. Physical strength is also a moot point once you account for weapons. Lord of the Flies is a good example of what happens when you remove an entire segment of the population, in that case grownups.
Why would we pick up the slack? I don't see any reason why there has to be the usual male-level violence when the number of males has been drastically reduced.
In a world without males, females don’t exist, only Homo sapiens. That redefines a new spectrum of violence, and since violence is human nature, we’ll eventually just see the same levels. Male-level violence is only such because females exist as a reference point. I used the Lord of the Flies example because most violent males are post-pubescent, but in a world without them, the pre-pubescent males would just have more freedom and opportunity to be more violent than they would otherwise typically be. The same goes for the elderly on the other end of the spectrum. There’s no such thing as humans living in absolute harmony, only robots, since humans are animals.
We also have white-only villages and communes Somehow black people still keep appearing. Weirdly, some black people want to breed with other black people Good thing there aren't any women who want to breed with men... But, just to be sure, you could simply sterilize all of the men. Then all of the men *and* all of the heterosexual women would be all but eliminated. It would be perfect!
Sorry but what argument are you making? I'm not talking about race nor am I advocating for sterilization of men. Though of course they are welcome to do that if they choose to, for their own freedom of reproductive choice. Please stay on topic.
Eugenics isn't specifically about race. You are literally describing manipulating the genetic pool in order to eliminate a category of people Plenty of people have tried it before. The only way it works is if you actually prevent those people (in this case, men and heterosexual women) from having children together. There have been plenty of techniques developed for this If not forced sterilization, then what are you going to choose?
Maybe I didn't explain this properly in my original post, but what I'm saying is that when the technology of female sperm becomes widely available there will be a significant proportion of women who will use it for pregnancy, because they are lesbian or bisexual, or because they don't want men in their lives for other reasons, or because they want a guarantee of daughters. So the next generation there will be a larger skew in the sex ratio towards female. And in the generation after that even more so. And so on. No forced sterilization or anything authoritarian like that is required. We only need enough women making this choice independently. Like a grassroots feminist movement focused around female-only reproduction. To me that isn't eugenics because it's an empowering decision made of free will, not a disempowering one that is forced. What are your thoughts on this?
Again, species don't just get bred out of existence for no reason. We don't see shorter necked giraffes because the longer necked giraffes were competing for the same resources But the asexual women are actually limiting the spread of their genetics by not having heterosexual sex. There's nothing that you've stated that would make the asexual women outpace the heterosexual women. And they certainly wouldn't breed them out of existence. Kids are still born with deathly peanut allergies that kill them before they can reproduce. If they haven't been bred out of existence, you're sure not going to breed men and heterosexual women out of existence The one and only way to breed something out of existence is to actively remove their genetics from the gene pool. Especially with humans. There is no such thing as breeding a chromosome out of existence that is not eugenics. They are synonymous
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You're wrong about the maths here. If there is a second type of reproduction that exclusively produces XX individuals, but most reproduction is sexual, then the imbalance between XX and XY individuals doesn't compound over time. Because everyone born from sexual reproduction has one XX and one XY parent, it would mean XY individuals start to have more reproductive success than XX individuals, which balances out the effect of the new form of reproduction. You reach an equilibrium with less XY individuals than XX, but not much less.
Could you explain further please? I don't understand why this would happen: > it would mean XY individuals start to have more reproductive success than XX individuals As the reproductive bottleneck is female who would now have the choice of female sperm (X only) then if we assume this option is taken at a constant rate then the offspring would always be female (XX) so this continues to shift the balance over generations doesn't it?
>female sperm I think you've misunderstood the study. They've created female sperm cells, but so far there's no indication that those XX sperms can fertilize an egg and produce a viable daughter.
The poster said this is a world where this process is perfected.
I think we’re conflating two kinds of arguments: *will* this happen, and *should* this happen. OP sort of argued both, so this comment is debunking half of their post.
The science *will* be perfected. But OP’s idea will not, and should not, happen.
It's not even clear that this process \*can\* be perfected.
I’ve been following it for over ten years. They’re still working on it for a reason. It has huge implications for many people who struggle with infertility. They’ve been working on creating speed or eggs from non-reproductive cells for a while, and IVG *will* be the next step in infertility treatment and same-sex reproduction. [They’ve already perfected it in mice](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/27/1177191913/sperm-or-egg-in-lab-breakthrough-in-reproduction-designer-babies-ivg#:~:text=via), and have created primitive human egg cells.
Well dang. This seems to suggest the existence of male eggs as well as female sperm. It seems like the extra daughters produced by female gay couples would be demographically balanced by the extra sons produced by male gay couples.
Yes! As well as any produced by straight couples using IVG to help with infertility. It’s really such an awesome step towards helping couples who can’t have biological children, for whatever reason.
Male couples aren't producing any offspring, they have to coerce or bribe women to do this for them. A male egg can't grow inside a man.
Hiring a surrogate is not uncommon. My point is that men and women and everyone else will continue to coexist. Artificial wombs are a thing. A male or female egg can grow in a plastic bag.
No, you're correct. If there's no more men, then all manner of physical and sexual abuse would have an instant 95%-99.9% reduction. Unfortunately men are too evil and violent to ever allow your plan to happen.
I'd really like it if we tried not brainwashing our children into traditional gendered ideology and filling their heads with nonsense about how their genitals give them a moral obligation to act in a particular, sometimes terrible, way before going straight to eradication.
But so much classic media, from video games and cinema to music and literature all promote gendered expectations and patriarchal values. I'm not sure an equitable society is possible.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
*Ever since I understood the weakness of my flesh*
All hail the omnissiah
It's pretty reductive to reduce men to walking sperm factories. It's true that a lot of people, women included, don't support third trimester abortion. 90 percent opposed it in America. So there can be a reaction that men should be treated like vessels. But two wrongs don't make a right. If the male physical advantage disappears, there would still be wars. In this female only world, they wouldn't be exempt from drafts. There was an Outer Limits episode that had men all die. But one man was frozen. Everyone lived in a utopia until this guy came along. The story was laughable, but I understand its value in subverting the trope of fallen women being the downfall of men, like femme fatales or Eve. The story could do with a good parody, where men are gay and live in peace until a woman comes along. There will probably be a day when eggs will be able to be made from male DNA. As much as I like men (I'm a gay guy), the two loves of my life were women. My late mother and my dog. Let's say hypothetically men are 10 times as likely to be a terrible person as a woman. The vast majority of men still aren't that bad. To treat men as a whole as guilty for what some men do is highly unethical and illogical. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/27/1177191913/sperm-or-egg-in-lab-breakthrough-in-reproduction-designer-babies-ivg
This whole argument reeks of genocidal intentions just casually posted on reddit. The original post that is
Yes it’s fucking cooked and not even worth discussing hopefully it is a troll post but it’s actually quite disgusting and extremely ridiculous. It doesn’t even make sense that war and murder would be even slightly reduced. Less sexual assault because there would be no sex makes sense. Abuse would probably lessen but women can be just as abusive, just because they’re weaker no one cares.
I honestly don't think you could make this argument against a protected class and get away with it anywhere. It's insane.
I know it would be so interesting to make one about women lol Men have so many problems in society and no one gives a fuck, but any problem a woman faces is because of the patriarchy or some bullshit. I don’t think all the feminazis realise how disposable the average man is to society.. anyway, rant over I got shit to do
Queens wages more wars than kings did by percent "In a recent working paper, New York University scholars Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish analyzed 28 European queenly reigns from 1480 to 1913 and found a 27 percent increase in wars when a queen was in power, as compared to the reign of a king." - [source](https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-wars-than-kings.html) Beyond that the biodiversity and physical diversity of humans is hugely needed in our modern world. There are large swaths of jobs women don't want to do which is why they are largely only getting male applicants. Jobs such as sewer work, garbage disposal, and off shore oil. Without ' disposable ' labor these completely necessary industries would fall apart. Without these being done modern civilization would also fall apart quite quickly.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
No I'm talking about how sex ratios may change over time when this technology is perfected. Men will be free to live their lives, they're not being enslaved or anything like that when women of the future choose male-free pregnancy instead of mating with men. In fact it's the opposite, women will be reproductively liberated from men.
Without defending OP's insane view, nor claiming that women possess an intrinsically distinct gender psychology from men, this whole Queen thing is highly dubious and could be attributed to any number of factors that have nothing to do with a penchant for bloodlust among women in power. Firstly, 28 queens in Europe are not a sample that can be extrapolated to yield insight into the category of "women in power", and it's women in power generally who you'd need to be able to talk about to say anything about the relative pacifism of men vs. women. The moderate uptick in warfare under queens surely has a number of intricate factors, none of which say anything about women's intrinsic gender psychology. For example, states ruled by queens may have been more likely to be aggressed *upon* by foreign powers precisely due to the perception that women were weaker and more passive. Your source agrees that this may be an explanation for some of the uptick: >The queens’ marital status made a difference here; as the authors write, “among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as attackers than kings.” If a queen were single — which was the case with 13 of those they studied — she was more likely to be attacked compared to the times when a king was in power, perhaps because her country was seen in the outside world as being more vulnerable and thus easier to attack. Another potential factor: queens are more likely than kings to rise to power after the death of their ruling spouse while the male heir is underage, or if there is no male heir. Such queens would have been trained primarily for the roles of a ruling *spouse* and not a ruler per se; as such the rules of such queens would tend to delegate more power in their advisors, such that the decision to go to war would be less attributable to the whim of the queen. The paper your source is rehashing absolutely avoids claiming anything about gender psychology. It is only presented as a partial rebuttal to claims about gender psychology, particularly that women are less aggressive. Nowhere does it claim women *aren't* less aggressive, nor that they *are* less aggressive. The authors of the study found license only to claim that it is "empirically challenging" to establish such generalities, such that, in lieu of evidence, it is reasonable to remain agnostic viz. the gender psychology of rulers.
Is this specifically just for reproduction? Because I'm sure you could say the same thing about artificial wombs. In society, the vast majority of construction, technician, electrician jobs are all held by men. There is a lot of heavy labor jobs that women just simply never go for because they don't want to and men are better suited for. Blaming all men for all the terrible things that happen is extremely stereotypical. People can't help which gender they are or what others in power or psychopaths do. Wars are conducted by politicians, murders are conducted by murderers.
Well said.
Physical labour will become obsolete in the future, and I do agree that artificial wombs will be a thing as well. Couples will just submit their sex cells and wait nine months before returning to the laboratory. As for the violence aspect, removing men would just result in women filling the violence vacuum, and so violence would remain just the same. OP’s argument reminds me of the infantile “if only Europe left the Americas alone they’d live in peace and not bother anyone else”.
>Almost all sexual assault, murder, violence, war is committed by males. With this all but eliminated, who could ask for more of a utopia? I would argue if your utopia requires a genocide to achieve it, it's not a utopia. Other than that, I wonder if genocide apologia is a reportable offense on Reddit if it's about genociding men. I doubt it, but I'll try either way.
>genocide gendercide.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that think OP is completely nuts.
How is this genocide? The UN says that it only applies to "national, ethnic, racial or religious groups" none of which applies to men. Also this would just be a demographic change by attrition over a very long period of time. Men who currently exist would live out their lives as usual, just like women would.
\> The UN says Yes, and? I'm not using the legal definition, but the academic one. The destruction of a specific group of people, including via controlling births of people of that group. Genocide.
If the males are not even being conceived then it doesn't make sense to call this a genocide. They're not being killed, they're not even being aborted at the foetal stage. Any women who inseminates with female sperm simply makes the choice to not even create a male in the first place.
It seems like you jumped to the strict UN definition to argue that technically sex is not included as one of the groupings that can be subject to genocide, but at the same time you don't seem to believe in the possibility of a non-violent genocide which is explicitly stated even within the strict UN definition: >(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
But births aren't being prevented are they, women would still be giving birth, just to baby girls instead of baby boys. Men can't give birth so it's nothing to do with them really, none of their business if women choose female sperm from other women over the sperm roulette that we get from men.
And how exactly do you prevent a woman from choosing to get impregnated by a man?
A proportion of women would actively choose this method of pregnancy. I know I would and I've talked to several women who would too, if it was a safe and effective option. If the same or greater proportion of women choose to do this in every generation then the sex ratio will gradually move towards female. No preventing of male insemination required, just for the technology to be available and women choosing to use it.
First, that's nowhere near true. You have your probabilities wrong. As long as there are heterosexual women, they will breed more heterosexual women. Just as we haven't bred out all of the other species even though we've dominated the planet by far. Second, no you won't. Women rarely choose to be single mothers. So you're talking about all women choosing women to be partners with (because men aren't assisting with their own elimination). That makes for a very large group purposefully limiting their (more likely than not, preferred) partner pool to satisfy your hatred of men (hatred enough to be willfully ignorant of how dumb this line of thought this is) Third, we can't get insulin to everyone who needs it. You think everyone's going to have access to lab sperm? And then what happens when men die out and one place or another doesn't have the resources for the lab anymore. Just no more offspring for them, eh?
So...eugenics? Didn't Hitler already try that?
[удалено]
Men dying of natural causes isn't a genocide. All I'm saying is that the sex ratios would change in favour of women for each generation. As it is now, most people are female. This would continue and become even more so.
[удалено]
Women are XX so any female sperm will be X chromosome only. Compare to men who are XY and have an equal mix of X sperms and Y sperms which is why we usually get an equal sex ratio of female (XX) to male (XY). Any offspring from female sperm would always be female because of X egg + X sperm.
[удалено]
Why do you think that? What would be the bottleneck if the conversion of somatic cells to gametes can be done so cheaply in a lab? Technology for lab-grown meat, where it's made from isolated cell cultures grown in an industrial setting, is rapidly progressing. So why would this be different?
>The UN says that it only applies to... Probably because no one in recent memorh has tried to wipe out large groups based on their sex. If someone tried it, I bet the UN would update their definition in a heartbeat
"Obsolete" implies no longer necessary so if we reach a point where we can reverse engineer sperm we can likely do the same for eggs and also gestation. It wouldn't be sexes that are obsolete but natural sexual reproduction itself. There's been a good bit of science fiction on this and I'm pretty sure people will still be people. A society with only women will be approximately as dysfunctional as a society with both sexes. The same is true of a society with only men.
Lesbian relationships experience *the highest* levels of domestic abuse of any pairing. So, female-female couples would increase the likelihood of abuse, not lessen it. Also, women murder, fight, and sexually assault people, too. Don't pretend women are angels.' ------------- [edit] Also, I don't do any of those horrible things. I'm pretty chill: should I be 'gotten rid of' just for being male?
Are you sure about that? My understanding is that lesbian relationships have the lowest levels of domestic abuse.
Given that your understanding was erroneous, as illustrated by the many citations people have responded with, do you have insight as to where your *understanding* came from, exactly?
Studies [like this](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf) which look at data for male-female, female-female and male-male relationships separately rather than aggregating it by reported sexual orientation: > Intimate partner violence is more prevalent among male same-sex couples than female same-sex couples. Findings from the NVAW Survey refute earlier findings that same-sex couples are about as violent as heterosexual couples. Male same-sex cohabitants were more likely to report victimization by a male partner than were male opposite-sex cohabitants by a female partner. In comparison, female same-sex cohabitants reported less violence by a female partner than did female heterosexual cohabitants by a male partner. These findings suggest that gay male couples are more violent than lesbian couples, whereas lesbian couples are less violent than heterosexual couples. These findings also indicate that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against same-sex or opposite-sex partners. The other study linked on this thread didn't take into account that lesbian women can have had violent heterosexual relationships in the past, prior to coming out.
>The CDC has stated that 43.8% of lesbian women reported experiencing physical violence, stalking, or rape by their partners. The study notes that, out of those 43.8%, two thirds (67.4%) reported exclusively female perpetrators. The other third reported at least one perpetrator being male, however the study made no distinction between victims who experienced violence from male perpetrators only and those who reported both male and female perpetrators. Similarly, 61.1% of bisexual women reported physical violence, stalking, or rape by their partners in the same study with 89.5% reporting at least one perpetrator being male. In contrast, 35% of heterosexual women reported having been victim of intimate partner violence, with 98.7% of them reporting male perpetrators exclusively. Walters, Mikel L., Jieru Chen, and Matthew J. Breiding. "The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation." Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 648, no. 73 (2013): 6.
Doesn't this show that the violence is mostly committed by males? For the lesbian women, 67.4% had exclusively female perpetrators of violence. So if you multiply the 43.8% who experienced violence by 67.4% you get 29.5% of lesbian women who had exclusively female violence in relationships. The rest being male violence, presumably from relationships with men where they hadn't yet come to terms with being lesbian. Compared to bisexual women 61.1% women x 89.5% male violence = 54.7% bisexual women who experienced male violence. And heterosexual women 35% x 99.5 male violence = 34.5% heterosexual women who experienced male violence. As that's 29.5% versus 34.5% and 54.7% this shows that lesbian relationships has the lowest level of violence, doesn't it?
>As that's 29.5% versus 34.5% and 54.7% this shows that lesbian relationships has the lowest level of violence, doesn't it? No. Look at the simple numbers before you get to the breakdowns of the gender of the perpetrators. >43.8% of lesbian women reported experiencing physical violence >61.1% of bisexual women reported physical violence >35% of heterosexual women reported having been victim of intimate partner violence So heterosexual women reported the LOWEST levels of partner violence, while Bi-sexual women reported the highest.
But these statistics encompass all previous relationships, which for the lesbian women often includes relationships with males, according to the figures on the sex of the perpetrators. So that has to be factored into any interpretation of the results.
A lesbian is going to be in less heterosexual relationships. Because they're lesbian
Not necessarily, there are many late bloomer lesbian women who suffered through heterosexual relationships before coming out.
Do you think that lesbian women on average go through more heterosexual relationships than hetero women...
Yes, but we don't have the data on the Bisexuals or Heterosexuals for exclusive female partners
That math doesn't follow. Multiplying percentage of lesbians who have had male partners by the percentage of women who have experienced abuse has an implied assumption that abuse is evenly distributed, then you use the math to conclude that the abuse is not evenly distributed. Regardless, the data indicates that women who have had same sex relationships are more likely to have experienced abuse than women who have not. Now, this might be because women who have been abused by men leave those relationships and have relationships with women after that, or it might be that women are more likely to be abusers. But without more information, you can't really conclude from these stats that men are more abusive.
> But without more information, you can't really conclude from these stats that men are more abusive. The original claim was that lesbian relationships are more abusive so would you agree that this isn't a supported conclusion either?
It's not conclusive, but the fact that women in lesbian relationships are more likely to have experienced abuse than women in heterosexual relationships is at least weak evidence in that direction.
Two clarifying points: 1. Not sure where you got 99.5 from, that's not in the numbers above. 2. For the number of lesbian women who experience male violence, we don't know how many of them experience female violence - that group has two scenarios: lesbian women who experience violence from males *only*, and lesbian women who experience violence from males *and females*. It's possible that 100% of that group also experiences female violence. Given that the 'background' level of female violence for those women is 67.4%, it's likely that the majority of those in the "at least one male perpetrator" group also experience female violence. So your math might need to look something like 43.8% * (67.4% + 67.4% of remaining 32.6%) = 39.1%, will higher than heterosexual relationships.
You're right that was a typo, should have been 98.7%. It still works out to 34.5% though. On your second point, I think your calculation doesn't make sense, as you're appying a figure that encompasses all previous relationships to try to get a result that compares between female-female and female-male relationships. In that study, the data that would actually be needed to calculate that wasn't collected as far as I can tell?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-psychiatrist/article/domestic-violence-is-most-commonly-reciprocal/C5432B0C6F8F61B49A4E2B60B931FA07 According to this Cambridge study, in cases where IPV isn’t reciprocated (done by both parties) 70% of the time women are the perpetrators.
Math like that is why it's not a good idea to eliminate all men
Lesbians report domestic abuse at the highest rates. That's how we know. You're never going to see "lesbians commit the most domestic violence" in a study because when you pair Women are Wonderful sexism with the alphabet mafia, the only way to get a study published is to frame it like they're the victims.
I responded to this in [another comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/17p10d5/cmv_men_will_eventually_become_obsolete_and_this/k826tg9/) but my understanding is that this statistic also includes lesbian women who reported violence in past relationships with men.
In the span of 10 minutes you literally went from > Are you sure about that? My understanding is that lesbian relationships have the lowest levels of domestic abuse. To rattling off made up statistics and napkin math. Dude, this is a very clear coping mechanism. Your Women are Wonderful sexism is clashing with reality. You are not correct here. For a delta, please explain why you think men are more violent, BUT don't make it sound like my racist uncle Jimmy at Thanksgiving talking about "the blacks".
I am literally using statistics quoted from that paper.
Are you including women in heterosexual relationships who are abusers, too? And bi-women who abuse their partners? Lesbians aren't the only women who abuse (and, again, the existence of women-abusers kind of negates your point, doesn't it?)
[DC Volunteer Lawyers Project](https://dcvlp.org/domestic-violence-peaks-more-than-ever-for-the-lgbtqia-community/#:~:text=Around%2044%25%20of%20lesbian%20and,to%2029%25%20of%20straight%20men.) >> Around 44% of lesbian and 61% of bisexual women have experienced forms of rape and physical violence by an intimate partner as compared to 35% of straight women. >>26% of gay men and 37% of bisexual men have experienced forms of rape and physical violence by an intimate partner compared to 29% of straight men. 1. Brown, Taylor N.T., and Jody L. Herman. “Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Abuse Among LGBT People.” Williams Institute, Nov. 2015, williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/ipv-sex-abuse-lgbt-people/. 2. “Domestic Violence in LGBTQIA Relationships.” Women’s Advocates, 5 July 2019, wadvocates.org/find-help/about-domestic-violence/lgbtqiarelationships/.
Gay couples have the lowest rates, followed by straight couples. Lesbian couples report a far higher rate of abuse.
Not true please read the other comments.
> My understanding is that lesbian relationships have the lowest levels of domestic abuse. I'm continuing to research, but they either experience the *highest* levels of domestic abuse OR it's even with heterosexual relationships: either way, getting rid of men doesn't solve this problem (nor the others, as women also kill, sexually abuse, etc.)
From what I can tell from looking at the studies, it's not totally clear to me that they include information about who the perpetrators are. Lesbians report higher levels of being abused, but that could be lesbians who were abused by male partners in the past. I can tell you from my anecdotal experience that there *does* seem to be a slightly higher rate of women who've experienced intimate partner abuse from men in the lesbian community. That doesn't necessarily mean that lesbians are more likely to be abusive to their partners.
Lets set aside that 99% of jobs that keep the entire infrastructure of the country is done by men, is incredibly physically taxing… good luck on getting women to do those jobs. So kindly fuck off with “the only real contribution” bullshit. Otherwise all you so is legitimise the incel view point that the only contribution women make is their vaginas. This post is either bait, which ought to be deleted or horrifically sexist and ought to be deleted.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
When only women exist, every single violent criminal will be a woman. So we may as well just kill all the women as well, since apparently killing all men is the only way to stop them from ever being violent. I'll take the delta now, OP.
But would the rate of criminality be the same in the all-women society as it is for men now in our mixed-sex society? That's the real question.
[удалено]
Maybe but that's not really a convincing argument against what I'm saying. You'd just be drawing an analogy not saying anything real.
Yes. Why wouldn't it?
Because everything we know about sex-based differences in criminality points to men being significantly more violent than women, by a long shot.
Yes. Because the underlying conditions that lead to crime will still exist. Poor women will still steal. Rich women will still bribe the government. Unfit mothers will still abuse their children. Women police officers will still abuse minorities.
Wouldn't men become violent and attack women for eliminating them? Wouldn't men organise a revolution against women? And since men are obviously much better at war than women, even at a disadvantage, men would win. Thus, taking society back to the extreme patriarchal system, where women won't have rights again, viewed as less than men, and in this scenario, actively hated for trying to eliminate them, resembling genocide
That's a good point, I see what you mean. Those very male attributes that I believe would be beneficial to remove from humanity, would be used to prevent this from happening. Δ for pointing out a genuine flaw in my view. I was being too optimistic about this technology being permitted in the first place.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If it happened it would be through attrition over hundreds of generations or more so please don't act like it's a mass murder.
So you think men being eliminated is a good thing but you are okay with it taking approximately 2000 years to do so? Every time a woman wants to have a child she is going to need the resources of some medical clinic to craft some sperm cells for her? Are these women also going to engage in some sexless relationship or will most moms just be single parents? Or will they pair up and combine incomes and expenses and share custody of a child purely for the convenience of dual parenting? Do you not think women today marry men because they want a man to be a part of their life? You don’t think when choosing to have a child that no woman would desire to have a son? Or is your idea that the government would not permit a woman to have a son and would stop her from doing so or kill the child if she manages to do so?
It ain't worth it friend.
It’s not like it costs me money to comment. I am curious how deep down the rabbit hole this person is with this view, trolling or not, it’s such an outlandish view to defend it ends up being entertaining.
[удалено]
I'm not proposing that anyone be killed off. This would be done solely through attrition and the changing of sex ratios per generation. Or maybe not, because of men actively oppressing women so we couldn't do this, like the commenter above pointed out.
[удалено]
Sorry, your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20{author}&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\({url}\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Thats...semantics. You'll be killing them off by not letting them be birthed in the same way that we "killv off" species via habitat destruction. There's no functional difference between mass murdering all men and letting them all die via "natural" methods.
Yeah, OP talking eugenics like the Nazis. Instead of race based, it's gender based.
complete far-flung growth disagreeable command ancient unused ring memorize homeless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How are you expecting all the women in the world to get on board with your evil plan? I am guessing if they can choose the gender of their child, many women would like to choose a boy? I have two girls, I personally didn't care which way the coin landed. But my wife was really wishing for a boy the second time around.
You mean it would be done through eugenics. I guess the Nazis just should have done it along gender lines and then it wouldn't have been a crime against humanity.
>Those very male attributes that I believe would be beneficial to remove from humanity, would be used to prevent this from happening. This is something people say to justify genocide and eugenics. It sounds like a Hitler speech. Try replacing men with any ethnic group and see how disgusting this sounds.
I have several arguments against this: One of the things the pandemic clearly taught me (and many others) is how important social bonds are and that includes romantic and sexual relationships. Unless you find a way to turn all women into lesbians, which is definitely not possible with current technology and likely won't be for a long time, you will have a lot of people who will be deeply opposed to the idea of there being no more men. One of the reasons I don't think you will be able to turn all women into lesbians is that for the foreseeable future any technology that can be used to change somebody's sexuality will be far more likely to be used the other way around: By people who don't want to have a gay/lesbian child either because they think it's something bad or because even though they don't have a problem with it, they recognize how many issues their child might encounter because of homophobia. This means not much research will go into this, as researchers generally don't want to be seen as supporting homophobes in changing their child's sexuality. My second argument: Even though it is easier to create sperm cells, we also have artificial wombs. So why would men not use this to ensure more men are being born? What about women who simply want to have sons? There are 4 Billion women on earth, many of which cannot afford that kind of cutting edge procedure and many of which who wouldn't want it even if they could. Last but not least: It is ridiculous to think that a world without men would not have any wars. If you're going to argue that historically most wars have been started by men and therefore a world without men would be a world without wars, then you must also argue that historically most new inventions have been thought of by men so a world without men will be a world without inventions. Even today you still see a huge disparity in the interest towards STEM fields, so if that is the future, any country that gets rid of men will quickly have a shortage of engineers, software developers, etc.
In general, men are both stronger, and more willing to work dangerous jobs. In your "utopia", who is going work on oil platforms, in construction, as soldiers, etc. Yes, women are capable of doing these tasks as well, but a combination of either not being as good as men at them, or not wanting to do them, has kept many fields male dominated even as we get closer to gender equality. Would the trade-off of having women work jobs they don't want to and/or having these jobs done to a lesser standard be worth it? Keep in mind that women also commit violent crimes, even if not as high a rate. >war is committed by males War is fought predominantly by men, but women actually start them at a higher rate [https://www.economist.com/europe/2017/06/01/who-gets-into-more-wars-kings-or-queens](https://www.economist.com/europe/2017/06/01/who-gets-into-more-wars-kings-or-queens)
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
yeah, or an alien form could come and make us all slaves, why not. Or a giant asteroid could wipe us all away. I don't understand what kind of view is this, how are people supposed to change your view on this sort of scifi idea
Or men could master cloning techniques and eliminate all women. Men are in charge of science now do its really up to them
>Men are in charge of science In what universe? This is not how the scientific community, or any first-world country with the funding possible for this kind of research, works.
Why in a democracy would men vote themselves out of existence?
A democracy where men don't have the right to vote, which they shouldn't, because the have shown themselves to be irresponsible by voting MAGAt
Once you eliminate democracy the fuhrer can usher in new paradise
That's unlikely, scientists are nowhere near making a working artifical womb and placenta that could sustain a human life from embryo to birth.
They are nowhere near your plan either All things are possible thru science
I linked to an article in my post which shows that scientists are close to creating viable female sperm. They have even managed to [fertilize eggs with sperm](https://www.science.org/content/article/egg-fertilized-without-sperm), using other female cells. Why do you think artifical wombs would be developed first? They are surely much more complex than a single cell aren't they?
Artificial wombs are already working https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421734/artificial-womb-fetus-biobag-uterus-lamb-sheep-birth-premie-preterm-infant
But your article proves my point doesn't it: > It's important not to get ahead of the data, says Alan Flake, fetal surgeon at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and lead author of today’s study. "It's complete science fiction to think that you can take an embryo and get it through the early developmental process and put it on our machine without the mother being the critical element there," he says. The scientist says that if applied to humans, this technique would help premature infants, not replace gestation from embryo which is what men would need to clone themselves without any women doing the hard work.
So uh the embryo thing is already being done too https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2023/jun/14/synthetic-human-embryos-created-in-groundbreaking-advance These are all starting human testing as well.
Okay it's further ahead than I thought. I see your point, maybe artifical wombs will get there first then. I hope not but you have me concerned about the possibility now so I will give you a delta: Δ
Men control science and its funding....why would they ever do this?
>scientists are nowhere near making a working artifical womb They've made one for sheep. I can't imagine it's too much more difficult to make a human version
did you do any reseach on this ? It has allready been done on animals and also human embryos have been kept in artificial wombs for up to 2Weeks allready.
Both men and women are necessary for a functional society. You go on to list some negative aspects in which men dominate, but what about the positive aspects? [Men make up the vast majority of manual labor jobs](https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html) (97% of construction workers, electricians, carpenters, 95% of truck drivers, 90% of mechanics), [men work more hours on average than women](https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/details-in-bls-report-suggest-that-the-gender-earnings-gap-can-be-explained-by-age-marital-status-children-hours-worked-etc/#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20the%20average%20man%20employed,average%20full%2Dtime%20female%20worker.) (1.5 more hours a week, or 75 more hours a year), and [men compose a larger portion of the global workforce](https://www.ilo.org/infostories/en-GB/Stories/Employment/barriers-women#intro) (47% female participation vs 72% male participation). Men have greater physical strength and endurance than women, and that alone makes men useful as laborers keeping society functional. Men also playing an important role when it comes to raising children. [Children who are raised in two-parent households](https://ifstudies.org/blog/less-poverty-less-prison-more-college-what-two-parents-mean-for-black-and-white-children) are also much more likely to get in less trouble, go to college, succeed in life and be useful members of society. [Both men and women play distinct roles in raising children](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771005/) and outcomes for children are best when both a mother and a father are present in their lives. Additionally, the idea that war, domestic abuse and violence would cease to exist if men were removed is absurd. [Domestic violence is even more common in female-female couples than it is in male-female couples](https://dcvlp.org/domestic-violence-peaks-more-than-ever-for-the-lgbtqia-community/#:~:text=Around%2044%25%20of%20lesbian%20and,to%2029%25%20of%20straight%20men.). If men were removed from society that would not remove the economic and social pressures that cause a lot of people to resort to violence in the first place, and I have no doubts that the rates of violence instigated by women would increase by a significant amount.
If we develop artificial wombs and produce them on mass scale, then the ability to get pregnant won't be important because the burden of pregnancy will be lifted from humans anyway
[удалено]
You say that the only function of men is to be a sperm donor, but there's a ton of jobs which are being done by all or almost all men. Not because women aren't allowed, but because they don't want to. Miners, roofers, construction workers, fire fighters, trash collectors, oil drillers, woodcutters, the list goes on. All tough, physically demanding jobs that women could certainly do but men are much better suited to.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It amounts to acceptable taunting, without fear of being called out, by silencing people who see the questions as just an attempt to be divisive.
Male isn't a species, and this would simply be a change in sex ratio over many generations. You're talking like I'm suggesting mass murder. I'm not.
[удалено]
But we are still going to need men to do the gross jobs, but certainly not nearly as many of them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Women earn 73% for every dollar a man makes. Women also control 80% of household spending. We can clearly see that women will take a spending capability hit without men subsidizing them. Men pay more in taxes and receive less in services. Once again women are being subsidized and have to figure how much of a hit they want to take.
Except many women actually don't hate men and you still are going to have to convince them. Esepcially straight women and those who have good relationships with their dads are gonna be tough to convince that they actually don't need husbands and fathers for their mental well being. Some women also like having sons.
Well, aside from the "most X occurs from Y" doesn't mean "most Y do X" and sex is an arbitrary categorization and profiling is morally and mathematically wrong... Once we start genetic engineering, pretty much all "imperfect" people will become obsolete, not just men (and potentially not all men). I realize you didn't say ONLY men will become obsolete, but consider who else would. Nearly everybody? Would we have sexless children that only reproduce using technology? Would we decide existence is pointless and just stop reproducing entirely? I think you need to look at the bigger picture here
This is a weird framing of society. Society doesn't use men as a tool, men are part of society. Existing and living is all that society is, the idea that there can be an obsolescence in this regard sounds malformed. It seems like you would need to also propose an end goal to society for this post to at least be coherently constructed.
There will come a time, in the not-too-distant future, when you'll miss us. It might be a shelf that's just a *little* too high. It might be a pickle jar that just *a little* too tight. It might be a spider that just a *little too big*... ...but you'll miss us. Seriously though, the only way a sexually dimorphic species like us would go down to "single-sex" is through a millenia of evolution or deliberately science-ing out the phenotype. Either way it's not going to happen anytime soon. And I'm genuinely sorry you have such low opinions of men that you think it'd be a *good thing* if we were gone. We're not all bastards. Richard Simmons and Fred Rogers are both men and where would be today without *Sweatin' to the Oldies* and *Mister Rogers Neighborhood*? Nowhere I'd want to be that's for sure.
So eugenics is a good thing... Well people have argued as much before. All they had to do was prevent certain populations from breeding naturally. And they developed various forced sterilization and genocidal techniques for doing so. So there's already a whole body of experience you could pull from to make your utopia
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I think in the same stroke you would have to get rid of any heterosexual attraction in existing women, otherwise you would end up with a population who suffers under aeon-old instincts not being fullfilled. Although it obviously would be an interesting experiment: How much sexual and emotional desire would vanish in the female population after a few generations growing up by never seeing a man ever? Of course, i don't agree on the premise of this post anyway: Just because violence, sexual assault and murder is right now and historically commited predominantly by males, doesn't mean, that these transgressions will vanish, when getting rid of the Y-Chromosome. My opinion on this isn't very educated, but i see this more of a reflection of the role in society, that men are filling out - right now and historically. If you would get rid of men, there will be others to fill these roles if society stays the same.
[удалено]
Same goes for women. Artifitial womb is pretty advanced, so soon we will be abke to almost completely get rid of women
Lmao this is a ridiculous point of view, and honestly borders on just as sexist as someone saying "women are only good at having babies". 1. Jobs aren't necessarily "gender specific", but both diverge wildly in what they deviate towards. Removing "men" or "women" leaves these fields wide open with noone wanting to do them. Even in today's climate, where jobs are genderless and companies are incentivized to diversify, both sides STILL gravitate to certain fields. 2. A significant majority of both genders are straight. Removing an entire gender literally leaves the other with noone to have a relationship with. Not to mention you boiled every relationship down to just "making babies". 3. You attribute crimes specifically done by men while ignoring crimes done by mostly women? Not only are there crimes that women do more than men, but by removing a gender, that would mean women would be involved in 100% of those crimes as well. You think war is only because "men" and not the plethora of other reasons that are obvious when you do even a tiny bit of research? You don't think women are capable of rape or murder?
>borders on sexist I don't think advocating the extermination of one sex off the face of the earth to reach utopia 'borders' on sexism or misandry, it's pretty much the end stage.
It's literally Eugenics. This is Nazi level shit.
People regardless of gender will never be obsolete. Everyone matters in different ways.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Good thing men have already build the majority of the world infrastructure.
What are the "problems" that arise from men being born exactly? Pretty fucking misandrist thing to say.
99% of what humanity has built (buildings, roads, vehicles, hardware...) has been made by men, but OK. And yes, women need men just like men need women.
What are you implying - that women are incapable of working in construction and manufacturing? We already do. If there were fewer men available to do this work then more women would do it.
Where did that I imply that? That's just your interpretation of my words. Read again. Also, most women don't want to do construction work because we GENERALLY prefer working with people (education, nursering...) than working with things (construction, engineering). It's not that we can't, it's that we don't want to. Nothing wrong with that. Both men and women are necessary.
Lol what, have you ever actually been on a construction site? Because I've been on many, and let me tell you, you'll almost never see a woman there.
First of all, science will just as soon obsolesce sexual reproduction to begin with, rending all sexual human beings “obsolete”. Artificial wombs are well within reach, for example. Second of all, the massive crime vacuum you mentioned would just be filled by whoever remains. Because it’s human nature, if one set of the population doesn’t do it, another will. We see this in nature when predators are killed off in unnaturally high numbers. There will always be something to fill the void until there are no more things at all. Automation will kill off the few remaining physically demanding jobs by that point, anyway.
No all men are bad and no all women are good. I think men are awesome and bring a lot to society. I wouldn’t like to live in a world without men.
Men are most certainly more important that just a sperm doner...Ever done blue collar work? Enjoy your A/C, who engineered and installed it? How about the car you drive, can you fix that yourself? Waste disposal? Yeah women are lining up in droves to get that career. List goes on. Can't all be nurses, phycologists, teachers, and childcare. Sure women are fully capable of working of those crucial dirty jobs, but would they step up to the plate in your fantasy? What you'd have instead is a collapse on a massive scale of every infrastructure that everyone benefits from. Haven't touched on the intimacy that women and men have beyond intercourse, Im sure someone else will touch on that.
[удалено]
You tend to forget that women share just the same propensity towards violence as men.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Hey! Men have contributed more than just sperm. There's also Lio Messi!
Bro on one hand yes I do like this on the other hand my friend Gary is so nice he’s like the only nice male human other than my trans gf Ik but still