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.