What if women could have children without men?

I don't mean parthenogenesis or cloning anything like that.

I mean what if our species could enjoy all the evolutionary advantages of sexual reproduction without the need to have men around.

See:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/inconceivable-482509.html

SNIP

Soon, it may be possible for any couple - gay, straight, infertile - to create a baby that carries both parents' genes.

Imagine your street 20 years from now. Your kids may have grown up and left home, but who might be living next to you? It could be a young lesbian couple and their biological daughter - created when an egg of one of the women was fertilised with the synthetic sperm made from the skin cells of the other. The family on the other side may have a healthy boy, created in the test tube when sperm from the father was inserted into an artificial egg created from the skin of the mother.

END SNIP

Lesbian women wouldn't have to "waste" half their pregnancies on males. They could outbreed heterosexual women.

To the extent that sexual orientations are inherited it may be not the "meek" but lesbians who inherit the earth.

On the other hand maybe some remaining heterosexual women will want to keep a few toy boys around to provide sexual gratification.

Dear Steven,

You ask, "Are men necessary?" I can't imagine my life without mine.
And, I am fortunate that he likes me, despite having known me for a long time.
I like the idea of longevity - you don't have to keep on explaining yourself.

To me he's the perfect man because he satisfies my emotional appetite. People either connect or they don't. And we do, which means we're beginning to mould to one another. But the moulding process takes time.

You need time - active time in a relationship. I like to be able to say, "Let it fall..." when an evening falls into something beyond what was originally allotted. Let it just fall into that wonderful, unscheduled time when relationships happen.

You have to have that empty time, empty space for a relationship, whether it leads to communication, as it frequently does, or to a romantic situation, or both!

Too often when people are dating, they're rushed into being sexual - a question of time again.

I like to have taken the time to discover each other. If both of us like what we have found - it's exhilarating, and for me, sheer magic.

My soul-mate is - mysterious, sensitive and strong, all the qualities I look for in a man. I love tenderness. But it is the rarest emotion one encounters. So I'm truly blessed.

"Are men necessary?" - Mine is - to me!

"Come my love and we shall wander,
All of life to see and know,
In the season's lostward rambling,
All things come and all things go.

We shall climb the snowy mountains,
Sail across the rolling sea,
We shall live for one another,
I for you and you for me.

We'll go down to green grass meadows,
Where the cold winds never blow,
If we taste the wine of loving,
Only you and I shall know.

Come my love and we shall wander,
Just to see what we can find,
If we only find each other,
Still the journey's worth the time."

STEVEN....thanx for further underlining the insanity of MIUAUG.

Your problem though, is that you, as an Atheist, don't have anything to offer except to 'state' the problem.

Far better for one to offer a SOLUTION to the problem after stating it.

FOXY said an important thing "Mine is...for me" and thats our problem.

Not Foxy or her ilk..but the idea reflected in her statement 'for me'....

Our current post modern social values are very much 'for me'... but not maybe for him..or her.. and why should it be ? after all.. we each come up with our own truth....right ?

And of course.. that condition (and its a serious one) leaves a society absolutely vulnerable to attack on every level. We have dug ourselves a hole..from which there is no escape.

How much better it would be if we could or would all voice with rapturous approval and enthusiasm "Men..and Women are wonderfully made, for each other" and of course, to totall send me into orbit, one could add "...by God".

The clear implication then is... that we will only be truly fulfilled when we live according to the divine plan.

The clear problem with that..is that until you have known it... you can't look back and say "Wowwwww... if ONLY I'd know about this beforehand" :)

John3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

by all means take issue with that statement..but puh-lease don't argue it with 'me'... argue it with the one who said it.
....perhaps some time on our knees would reveal some hitherto illusive answers.

Boazy: "no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again"

Does being born again require a father and a mother, or would two lesbian parents suffice?

LOL CJ Morgan!

It depends on the man. Eddie Maguire, for example, is totally surplus to requirement. So is Boazy, I fear.

There's a few women I could do without too. I wouldn't miss Sandra Sully, though I'm afraid my husband would.

Even if this science takes off we will always need men if for nothing more than genetic diversity. :)

Life would be boring without men.

Since the beginning of history mankind has been set upon by zealots and crusaders, who, have wanted to fervently raise them from benightedness to blessedness.

The result has been a great deal of bloodshed and violence committed in Thackeray's phrase, 'the mischief which the very virtuous do.'

Who are the self-appointed emissaries of God who have caused so much
havoc in the world?

They are men who believe in some cause without doubt and practice their beliefs without scruple, men who have become living, breathing, embodiments of some faith or idealogy...

Are such men necessary? Men who see themselves as appointed missionaries in a benighted world. Who have the arrogance to assume that the rest of us need educating - while they themselves lack the traits of kindness, compassion, respect, and a sense of fair play.
Or what is often described as character.

Necessary? About as necessary as a second head!

Fuzzy...(your new name until you talk sense :)

Kidding.. FOXY.. mate.. you are missing a few screws there in your argument. here is how it goes.

1/ You begin with a prefixed idea of 'religious people are horrible/fanatics'

2/ Someone speaks to you about Christ.
3/ Thus.. what they are speakng MUST (by virtue of your predisposed idea) be the words of 'horrible genocidal fanatics'

4/ Then.. you project that 'horrible fanatic/historically violent' image..on anyone who speaks about Christ.

Here's the flaw, and it's about as big as the old Quarry down at Box Hill...

"Jesus.. and those who imitate him, are not cruel or genocidal people." (They may be soldiers though)

I think you lack the basic understanding of what Jesus stood for.

What I CAN accept from you is this:

"Many people historically, have USED the name of God, or Christ, or the Church.. to justify many things of a horrific nature, but as I read the New Testament..I cannot see how they arrive at this behavior based on those scriptures" ah..'that'...I can accept.

You can even say 'Oh BD..ur such a badddddd Christian'..and I'd have to agree with you.. but the downside about that, is that no matter how I come across in here.. it doesn't change the actual truth of the message of Christ, or his words about the need to be 'Born Again'...

You could even say "OOOoh..if YOU are an example of what being born again is about.. leave me out of it"..and again..I'd have to agree.
(except that you don't actually know 'me'... just my writings)

But the downside a-gain...is that the truth of Christ does not depend on 'me'. It depends on the Words and death and resurrection of Christ Himself.

I reckon seven wives must have proved a point.

Without men, insurance companies would go broke as they would be obliged to lower their insurance premiums for car and motor-cycle drivers, to the point where they could not make a profit.

Without young men who believe they are immortals, who would be our heroes? How could we possibly fight wars? Our arms manufacturers would go broke and the women working in the arms factories putting explosives into shells would be out of work. And their parthenogenic daughters would starve.

And their parthenogenic daughters couldn't even earn a living as prostitutes.

The bar owners of Bangkok would go broke.

The New York taxi drivers would rapidly lose their reputation for rudeness if they all were women.

No, it's we men who make the world go round. We are essential!

Indeed, dear Henry.

Moreover, we are the ones with dicks!!

(I was going to say something about the penis in the room, but I decided to eschew the very dodgy cliche and go with the statement of the obvious)

Boazy said "I think you lack the basic understanding of what Jesus stood for."

Lets put it to a vote who between Foxy and Boazy who's posts best reflect what Jesus stood for.

Before voting please take a little time to review some of the posting history of both and take a read of Jesus most famous body of work on what he stood for - what we call the sermon on the mount.

I'll include the start of the work below to help.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205;&version=31;

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Foxy I don't know all of your life but I suspect that you at a minimum will be full, shown mercy, seeing god, called a son of god (sorry about the gender confusion in that) and apparently the kingdon of heaven is yours.

Boazy I've not seen evidence of any of this stuff in your posts, sorry but you dip out.

I'll vote for Foxy having demonstrated attitudes which best reflect what Jesus stood for.

R0bert

Dunno about the biblical crap, but I reckon Foxy's a saint :)

Boazy, on the other hand...

Foxy embodies everything about Christianity that I love.

Boazy embodies everything about it that I loathe.

Seriously, it's Jungian.

If there were no men, who would do all the heavy lifting and who would kill the spiders?

Yeah Wobbles - I used to think men were necessary to open jars and pull up zips...but then they invented gadgets for those chores and there went that argument.

Seriously however - there are men in my life whom I adore and two for whom I would give my life in the blink of an eyelash.(Some others I might have to ponder over for a few minutes).

And on the Foxy/Boazy question? *PUHLEEZE* :). I think I would point to Foxy as being the embodiment of what Christianity is supposed to mean. Boazy, on the other hand? Well he's the embodiment of all that gives Christianity a bad name really, wouldn't you think?

not really necessary, women can get along without any. but probably they would want to keep a few as sex slaves, or laborers.

the problem is not are they necessary, but how to get rid of them. women have been trying to get rid of cockroaches and spiders for thousands of years, and men are much stronger than that, nastier too.

still, genetic engineering does offer hope. a man with reduced intelligence and increased potency could be developed, just smart enough to run a vacuum cleaner, biddable enough to put the toilet seat down, and always available for sexual gratification.

what a wonderful world it will be, unless men destroy it in the meantime, always a possibility.

Thanks to you all - for your kind words and support.

Seeing as BD gave you his version of my lack of understanding of God.

I'd now like to set the record straight - and give you my version:

Once, long ago, in a world of confusion and weariness, there exploded a new and exciting hope. A man appeared in Palestine and spoke in syllables that seemed to come from God. He was a Jew, steeped in the power and beauty of a religious heritage unparalleled in East or West.
He was not locked in bigotry nor did he serve the interests of a single nation or a special race. His blood, indeed, was the sensitive and boiling blood of Abraham and David, the blood that would mark the Jewish peoples in ages to come. His vision, however, went past the boundaries of Palestine to encompass the world. His eyes looked to everyone who hurt, and his healing hand was extended to the weak and sinful woman, the outcast leper, the blind man who had worn out his friends and relatives with his wailing.

Weary men heard him and felt a sudden surge of strength. The guilty listened to him, and began again to respect themselves as men. Fisherman followed him and so did the nobles who had discovered that wine and women did not satisfy each thirsting ache. Some men called him the "God-man," and even those skeptical of his stature marveled at the power of his words.

In a sense he had nothing new to say when he insisted that every commandment must begin and end with love. Man had learnedof love before this God-man came to earth. The Egyptians had tried to love their wives, and Babylonians had been taught to treat each neighbour with dignity and respect. The Jews especially, nourished by the words of Isaias, Ezechiel, and Jeremias, had learned the responsibility of love, and for centuries had struggled to prevent the narrow and arrogant laws of men from smothering the underlying ideal of love.

It is so stupid a question, I am not sure why I am bothering to respond, put it down to a moment of idleness.

I can give one good reason why society needs men.

I am a father. I have two daughters. They both confirm to me one of the reasons why women alone (or men alone) do not represent the best parenting option.

We are wired by nature to function in family units with a father and mother prominent. Remove one or both of those parent elements and you get something less. You get a child who is generally, less secure, less aware, has lower self esteem and is more likely to be resentful and disruptive to other members of society (I say generally, I know there will always be exceptions).

The question to ask is why?

I believe alot of it is the influence of the unconditional love of the two natural parents, especially the one of the opposite gender to the child.

Whilst many orphanages are I am sure, run by loving, caring and compassionate people, those good folk cannot replace that unconditional love a child should receive from its natural parents. The orphanage staff cannot tell the orphan where his or her natural parents are or why he / she ended up in an orphanage.

So ponder all you want the merits of alternatives to the traditional family structure. Lenin tried and produced a generation of soviet misfits.

Ultimately the plans of men last a generation, until a new bunch of folk take over and decide to try something different. The plans of nature work on a far longer timeframe than a single or even several generations

CONT'D

For every just man there were a dozen pharisees who made a mockery of God by reducing Him to a set of rules imposed on the frightened and defenseless. Thus Jesus would speak of a new commandment, "that you love one another as I have loved you."

And so began the religion of love, to perfect and fulfill the other religions of love that men had reduced to the coldness of unyielding law. History had known noble ideals before, but time and fear had wrapped such ideals in the smothering moss of legal codes and tablets. Now Christ, in a manner beyond compare, offered to men a new and thrilling vision. Paul, sparked by such a vision, wrote in a Letter to the Romans that man had been set "set free from the law" and would be able to live by the sweeping spirit of love. He did not mean that there would be no religious law. He only meant that never again would a man in personal anguish have no recourse but the cold and universal rule that applied to all men. He could be a person because he could know a personal God Who refused to be bound by a single religious rite or the judgemental ruling of a high priest's tongue.

No longer could man reduce the vision of God to the dumb idols that only made permanent the pride and pettiness of man. No longer could man stuff God into the convenient pigeonholes built by men. Now no statue would contain His majesty. No law, or books of law, could prescribe the minute conditions of God's mercy and love.

Men could, indeed, call Christ God, even as I do, in simple and indefensible faith. Others might find their God in "Church" or "Abraham" or "personal honesty." But no longer could any man say that he had defined and comprehended God, nor that any other man was certainly without God's forgiving love. God has no name because He has no boundaries, and His love cannot be limited by the blindness or egotism of frightened men.

Sorry to follow your post with something trite Foxy, but i am reminded of the oft used description of the female mammaries.

No I prefer the status quo: it comes in such a cute container.....

__________________________

Seriously; I remain mortified at this kind of so-called progress.

We can spit in the face of nature; but it will inevitably retaliate.

Romany,

This off-shoot about religion reminds me of a statement that was attributed to a politician.

"The Honorable Member uses statistics (religion) as a drunk would use a lamp-post. For support rather than illumination".

I think that's a good example of the difference between the two protagonists.

I hope those men in your life realise how lucky they must be.

Are men necessary?
I!d of thought the answer to that would have been ovious:)

Just from a different angle.... Are men necessary?

It depends... if the definition of 'necessary' is
"being essential, indispensable, or requisite"
then no, men are not necessary.

Men are not necessary for the same reason that women are not necessary.

Human beings as a species are not necessary from the POV of other species - the world, the universe, nature would run smoothly (and I dare say life sustainability would improve for many other species) if humans didn't exist at all.

Having said that- I think my cat finds my husband is hugely indispensable... he usually feeds her first thing in the morning.

Of course men are necessary, how else could women get pregnant shack up with another bloke, and have the paternal father of the child pay half the childs upbringing, no women would in her right mind would pass up that sort of money by becoming pregnant using other means.

Now there is a bitter and twisted man that I like. I wish I had thought of that one.

Of course men are necessary. I'm afraid that when it comes to opening jars, we're just plain better.

Sorry if that ticks off any feminists, but it's true. My jar opening skills are up there with the best of them.

Take heed, lesbian social engineers. This plan is folly. It will leave you with vast quantities of pickled yams that simply can't be accessed.

Did you stop and think about the pickled yams? Huh? Did you?

It started from the outside and worked its way in.

Redheads em both.

:"He's a sick Old Man"

Signed two highly bonded adult Sons

An executive dreams up an idea,
has an assistant who says it can't be done,
and a secretary who does it!

or -

He took his misfortune like a man -
he blamed it on his wife.

or -

It takes a woman twenty years to make a man of her son,
and another woman twenty minutes to make a fool of him.

or -

Australian men think feminism means treating women as sequels.

God nade man fight over women how cruel is that?

"God nade man fight over women how cruel is that?"

I'd have to say this post ranks near the top of the bitter misogynist stakes.
Yes, I know misogynist is an overused insult in the feminist wars, but I think here it's justified.

God didn't make man do squat. If they chose to fight over women, that's their business.
I can understand people believing in a god, but choosing to believe in a god that you hate is just warped.

Clearly Only Human, some jezebel has put you through the grinder. I don't know you so I dunno if it was warranted. Maybe you really were just a victim.

When you take all that hate and use it as a sledgehammer against all women however, it's clear you've got issues you really need to resolve.

TRTL, try giving the jar lid a whack around the edges with the back of a knife before opening. Jar opening men are eminently dispensable.

Sexual gratification? What shape would those pickles be if you don't mind me asking?

Personally I don't think fiddling with nature is always a brilliant idea, but since when has humanity taken up being consistently brilliant?

TRTL,

You obviously didn't read my post re the jar openers, man. The future of the pickled yam is safe in a man-free environment! Jar openers come in a little packet: small, medium, large. Adapt to any need. How many men can do that, huh?

PS. See you tackled Only Human's second post. Um..did you actually understand what the one before that meant? I have tried my best decoding skills on it and can't. Perhaps (sigh) it needs a man to explain it to me?

They've found a way around the pickled yams? Oh damn, lads. We're done for.

But of course, this doesn't look after the many forgotten yam-stashes lurking in the dusty 'preservatives' section of the family cupboard.

Who, but the most skilled of jar openers can excavate those pickled archaelogical treasures? For all the new packet product, generations of past-pickled-yam run the risk of being wasted.

As for Only Human's posts, I can't make head nor tail that one either, but I think the jezebel was a redhead and there may have been some bickering with a rival in which he came off worse - but I can't be certain, and I'm not sure I want to be.

Stupid question and stupid topic. Sorry, but this topic is meant only to be taken seriously by feminists.

Whats worse some men are phsycic and feel the pain before it gets there, others are less cursed.

God made women love man its not mans fault, he was bourne with the instincts of a dog.

You can see women walking down the street looking for some happy bloke to make misserable.

i'm going to stab the next person who uses the term misogyny. CHECK THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD. I think the word you are looking for is mysandry. We should all start talking about it a lot more.

Well_well_welll.... why am I rejoicing ? :) because people are looking to Jesus!

I see people, even Robert.. trying to portray how they perceive the Lord and his legacy. Wonderful!

Many bones are being pointed at me.... well thats ok... but I wonder.. truly.. if some of you are not 'projecting' onto Jesus an idealized romantic idea which suits your sentimental longing for one to epitomize the qualities you desire deep down.

Robert quoted from the sermon on the mount. But Rob.. why did you not quote (to give balance) from Math 11:20

<<20Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.>>

What was that word? "repented"....

Is this not the same Jesus who said "Blessed are the meek"?

If at one time I reflect 'that' Jesus and at other times the one of the Sermon on the mount.. am I being unfaithful to Him ? No..of course not, but I'm being a fly in the ointmant of 'the romanticized projected' Jesus.

It seems that the problem some have, is they cannot imagine a 'judgemental' Jesus.. they just want the 'warm loving' one.

You see.. Jesus did not approve of immoral behavior. When I make that point.. I am suddenly a 'glutton and a drunkard'...or.. 'a tax collector and a sinner'...

Romany says.. "Foxy is the embodiment of everything Christianity is supposed to mean"
Are you sure ? Or..is Foxy the embodiment of all you would 'like' Christianity to be?

Foxy says Jesus reached out a loving hand to the women caught in sin.Yes.. and his parting words were 'go..and sin no more'

He does call us to 'repentance' -Not to 'law'.. but heartfelt change of life based 'on' that law.

Steel, I was the last one to use the term misogyny and it was quite accurate. I was referring to Only Human's post, which was in turn expressing a dislike of women.
You're right in that misandry is the accurate term for a dislike of men, but that's not at all what I was referring to.

At the risk of introducing to this thread the level of irrelevance which it so richly deserves,

Steel “i'm going to stab the next person who uses the term misogyny.”

Reads very much like something a misanthropist might say and do to both misogynists and misandrists

Col,

This is based purely on extrapolation from anecdotal evidence, so could be shot down in flames, but I'll give it a shot anyway. May I suggest that single-parent families are most likely to be unhealthy for the children based on the reason for them becoming single-parent families. Much would depend on the attitudes of the parents to the opposite sex. If the result of a bitter divorce, then yes I agree that the children would suffer as a result. I think you would see the difference the most where single parent families start as a result of the death of one parent. I was raised in such a family and know of several others, and I dont know of any offspring of such that have unhealthy attitudes towards the opposite sex (well, I suppose that depends on your definitions - I generally expect too much of men, given that my father is so capable!).

Are men necessary? Strictly speaking, no, but arent relationships usually much healthier and more fun if they are based on want, not need?!

Just when you think you got em confused one gets ya.

They are highly same sex tribal.

No man stands a chance.

Catch with the face powder.

Keep with the baking powder.

Just in case a need a man arises.

Come, come Sisters is there something you dont want to admit.

@Col Rouege: I don't think misogynists and misandrists represent all of humanity.

This whole topic is abhorrent. I will take artificial insemination as an example. It entirely negates evolutionary processes. The strongest or fastest sperm do not win. Instead a random sperm is selected and inserted into the ovum.

This includes donors. It has been written in scientific studies fairly recently, that people choose their sexual partners based mainly on the chemistry of their genetics. That is to say, the chemistry that attracts you to a partner determines suitability for reproduction. Now when you get donors this process also is destroyed. I'm not saying this will have a massive effect but it seems reasonable to conclude that ignoring evolutionary processes would be a bad thing.

Those are just two examples of damage being done to our genetics. I doubt the effects of such processes are being tracked.

There's me,

Irish + Scottish Knight, bush boy, kissed by the wild gypsie spell.

Massacest begged to be whipped, beaten and hurt.

The Sadist said No.

Foxy wrote, "It takes a woman twenty years to make a man of her son,
and another woman twenty minutes to make a fool of him".

Foxy-20 minutes to make a fool of a man? You are SLOW! Or kind.

It took my Anne Bolyn 2 seconds to make a fool of me-that look across the crowded room, that meeting of eyes! I was a goner! And I started to open jam jars compulsively.

Why all the focus on Jam Jars when a much more critical duty remains? Who will kill (or remove from the house/street/suburb) spiders if men were gone.

A jam jar rarely evokes the sense of urgency that a spider does and spray's just don't do the job.

While spiders remain and sprays don't kill and evaporate the bodies instantly we will still have a role.

R0bert

Dear Henry,

I always supected you were an old romantic ...

You just had a bad agent.

Country gal, my last post was designed as whimsy, to insert levity into the debate,

To your comment “Are men necessary? Strictly speaking, no, but arent relationships usually much healthier and more fun if they are based on want, not need?!”

You need to read my previous posting

Per Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 13 February 2008 9:13:10 AM

Regarding the family unit and the healthy development of the progeny

“We are wired by nature to function in family units with a father and mother prominent. Remove one or both of those parent elements and you get something less.”

As someone who is divorced from the mother of my daughters and as someone who has, despite threats etc, been a consistent presence in my daughters lives, the relationship I have with them both and the way they deal with their own lives, as independent minded women and the things they say and the love they express to me suggests there are very positive benefits to be afforded to someone with interaction and love of both parents, regardless of the marital status.

My ex-wife and I have always been able to bury our differences for the sake of our children, dancing together at the girls prom nights and always having birthdays and Christmas as a family, despite the divorce.

Men might not be necessary, women aren't either.

However, mothers and fathers are absolutely essential.

Steel “I don't think misogynists and misandrists represent all of humanity.”

I was having a joke at the expense of your post Steel, don’t take it seriously.

For the sake of gravitas, take the last line of my response to Country gal as from the heart and not something quick off the lip.

to respond to Foxy's observation of Henry VIII

"I always supected you were an old romantic "

With 6 wifes I would say he was a Masochist.

and Foxy to you previous comment

"means treating women as sequels."

actually whilst some men and women choose a polyamorous lifestyle, far more as simply "serious monogonists".

re my last post

"actually whilst some men and women choose a polyamorous lifestyle, far more as simply "serious monogonists"."

please replace with

actually whilst some men and women choose a polyamorous lifestyle, far more are simply "serial monogonists" (serious or flippant).

Foxy-You are wrong. I had a good agent; a very good agent. Had my real, old-fashioned, gentle and romantic self been known to my subjects, how long do you think I would have lasted? Having a fearsome reputation as a tyrannical head-lopping king set the foundation stone of our great empire. Would you have wanted Kevin Rudd to have said, "Sorry" in Spanish or possibly (perish the vile thought) French? Indeed, under the Spanish, would there have been anyone left to say, "Sorry" to? Now, back to my jam-jar tops.

Dear Col Rouge,

Just to clear things up -

Men think 'monogamy' is something you make dining room tables out of.

Dear Henry VIII,

Thanks for correcting me. So you're not a 'romantic' as I thought...

I see. Then you were merely being 'sensitive' regarding all that
head-chopping? Hmmmm.

Many a man thinks himself extremely sensitive simply because he's easily put out. (smile).

Ahh Robert,

Your whole theory falls down by failing to take into account the fact that not all women are arachnaphobes.

Once when I went away my (male) house-sitter ran screaming from the house during the first night because I had neglected to tell him that my pet tarantula liked to spend the night directly above my head on the blinds.(And don't even THINK of the whole snake thing. Had a pet one of those too. Lived under the piano. Made short work of many a date back in the day.)

So..jam-jars, back zippers on dresses and spiders dispensed with. (Briskly rubbing her hands) C'mon, guys, give it another shot.

Romany, I'll have to live in the hope that there are enough women out there with an adversion to opening jam jars or dealing with spiders to keep men in demand.

There are women such as yourself who do all that stuff and men who don't but to keep this debate viable we will need to stick to stereotypes, the stereotypes where women can't open jam jars or deal with spiders and men can.

R0bert

Camille Paglia had an interesting view, that if there were no men, women would still be living in grass huts.

Esther Villar author of the "Manipulated Man" adds another view;

"Women let men work for them, think for them and take on their responsibilities - in fact, they exploit them."

"Since men are strong, intelligent and imaginative, while women are weak, unimaginative and stupid, why isn't it men who exploit women?"

"Could it be that strength, intelligence and imagination are not prerequisites for power but merely qualifications for slavery?"

"Could it be that the world is not being ruled by experts but by beings who are not fit for anything else - by women?"

"And if this is so, how do women manage it so that their victims do not feel themselves cheated and humiliated, but rather believe to be themselves what they are least of all - masters of the universe?"

Why are women never unmasked?"

I suppose in reality men are only necessary for a short period time. The time it takes to impregant a woman and supply her with house, sounds about right. The case in point is the Sir Paul MacCartney and Heather Mills, Mills and Boons saga.(pun intended)

Yeah I know not all women are like that etc etc etc. Some even actually like men most of the time.