The New York Times continues to assault the very existence of men, with an Op-Ed (“Men, Who Needs Them?”) so steeped in idiocy that one wonders if all critical thinking is extinct at the Gray Lady.
“Contributor” Greg Hampikian pens an article so devoid of any understanding of biology, sociology or basic reality that it fits right in with the typical, liberal feminist invective. Apparently, this father (who prides himself in his own fantasized insignificance) contributes nothing valuable to society. The article is laced with misandry, a favorite of liberal feminism, and suggested violence against men (made easier with today’s greater “firepower” and “ubiquitous weapons”.)
In light of the DNC’s convention, and its unrestrained worship of abortion and non-reproductive marriage, we are being bombarded with a destructive liberal narrative that wants, so desperately, to rewrite reality.
The article claims that we all started as an egg. Really? Not according to science. We all started with the union of two components—an egg and sperm—every one of us. But Hampikian goes on to disparage the role of the man, claiming the inconsequential sperm provides “just an infinitesimally small packet of DNA”. Yes. It is small, yet without it, the massive miracle of human life wouldn’t be possible.
Hampikian, by the way, is a professor at Boise State University in the Department of Biological Sciences. BSU parents must feel all kinds of confidence in this propagandist. Why is it that liberals continually have to disavow their respective fields (history, sociology, psychology, science, mathematics) in order to bolster an indefensible socially re-engineered worldview? These perspectives have consequences.
And as always, children are the ones who will suffer the most (born and unborn).
Hampikian claims: “Fortunately, the data for children raised by only females is encouraging.” He must mean that children who grow up in single female-led homes are 5 times more likely to grow up in poverty than those raised by two married (male/female) parents. Yes, that’s so encouraging. Or perhaps he meant that children who grow up in single female-led homes, with live-in boyfriends, are 8 to 10 times more likely to be neglected or physically (and sexually) abused? Yes, professor, that’s an uplifting thought. He says that poverty is the issue. Newsflash, professor: people are impoverished. It’s not an abstract condition. It’s a crisis that is, too often, the result of rampant fatherlessness that can be avoided. The mass exodus of fathers over the past few decades have decimated, in particular, the black community as 72.3% of black children are born into homes without fathers. The vacuum left by men has been filled by the destruction of abortion as 84% of our nation’s 1.21 million annual abortions are among unmarried women. The Radiance Foundation’s TooManyAborted.com awareness campaign addresses the epidemic of fatherlessness and the devastating impact it has on our society.
And yet, the biologist asks, “ultimately, the question is, does ‘mankind’ really need men?”
Although the New York Times and Hampikian have no use for actual data and easily accessible evidence, our posterity is impacted every day by the willful destruction caused by such promoted journalistic ignorance.
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
The article praises the work of geneticist and evolutionist J. Craig Venter, falsely claiming that he “demonstrated that the female component of sexual reproduction, the egg cell, cannot be manufactured, but the male can.” That’s not exactly what Venter did—not even close. Despite all of the mainstream press (because they always present factual accounts of anything to the public) about Venter creating “synthetic life”, the claim is untrue. Dr. Jonathan Sarfarti, a creationist physical chemist, unpacks this in a clear and concise way. John Horgan, writing for Scientific American, also reveals the hype behind Venter’s (admittedly incredible) work.
But none of this is about the science. Hampikian has shown that biology (and any empirical evidence) can be easily sacrificed to placate the self-worship of evolution and the goddess of liberal feminism.
Sorry, New York Times. Men aren’t just “entertaining”, as Hampikian writes, but are essential. Real life and the children harmed by the absence of fathers would beg to differ.
Men, who needs them?
We all do.