Right, so I am writing this at midnight and I haven’t actually watched the video of Paul Elam (of hate site A Voice for Men) and Charles Clymer (of Equality for Women) debating whether feminism is “toxic for men.” Here’s a link to the YouTube video of that debate. The thing looks to be about an hour long, so I’ll
listen to it while playing Guild Wars 2 watch it at some point in the next day or so and possibly write up a proper response. I did manage to hold my breath and scan through the YouTube comments where I found this gem:
So first, I will indeed “do the math,” as elbowbiter1 suggested. Unless we’re discussing artificial insemination, there’s basically no way a society with 1000 women and 1 man will be generating 1000 babies a year. There are 365 days in a year. If we assume “babies in a year” refers to births rather than conceptions, then (particularly for that first year), the number of potential days of conception drops to 85 (365 days in a year – 40 weeks of gestation x 7 days in a week). So in order for 1 man to generate 1000 babies in a year with 1000 women, he has to have had sex 11.7 times each day, every day, for the entire year (1000 women / 85 days). That is just not possible. But, okay, I will be generous and assume elbowbiter1 means conceive 1000 babies in a year. Even then, the math just doesn’t add up. To conceive 1000 babies, the 1 man would have to have sex 2.7 times each day, every day, for the entire year (1000 women / 365 days). This is more inside the realm of biological possibility, but still well outside the optimal, biologically speaking. Also, let us not forget that this math relies on the assumption that every woman’s ovulation cycle is such that there is never a time when none of the women are ovulating, that every single woman becomes pregnant after having sex with the man once, and that the pregnancies all come to term (i.e. no miscarriages).
Because I am magnanimous, I will acknowledge that elbowbiter1 says “at most 1000 babies a year.” He does acknowledge the possibility that there would be fewer than 1000 babies resulting in one man having sex with 1000 women in a year. However, I assert that it is not only a possibility, but rather a near statistical and biological certainty, that said configuration of men and women would result in fewer than 1000 babies in a year.
Let us also not forget that though a male body is capable of producing a hell of a lot of sperm and of having sex with many different people, humans have also developed biologically to seek close interpersonal relationships. I’m not even talking about social norms, at the minute, just our biological drive to seek social interaction. Human brains have developed in such a way so that we connect sexual intimacy with social intimacy. Male bodies and female bodies produce the hormone high known as “romantic love,” indicating that we are biologically programmed to stay with a mate for an extended period of time. This is potentially explained by the long gestation period (40 weeks), but what is important here is the fact that this biological drive to form a social relationship with a mate exists for both men and women.
I posit that were men truly biologically disposable, humans would have a mating system more similar to the honey bee (with it’s exploding testicles) or the clownfish (with males changing their sex if the female of the group dies) or the anglerfish (with it’s parasitic males) or, finally, the antechinus (which practices suicide reproduction). But no, humans have developed so that biologically, the male is capable of sticking around and hormonally encouraged to do so. And raising offspring (i.e. children) is something which is optimally done with multiple caregivers. Again, I am just speaking from a biological standpoint. Raising a human child requires so much time and effort (as compared to most other animals) that a single, isolated individual would have a hell of a time doing so successfully.
MRAs just cannot seem to get it into their heads: human biology (human reproduction, even) is so much more complex than our dimorphic reproductive organs.
ETA: Just realised that, considering women are capable of becoming pregnant twice in a year, this makes the math elbowbiter1 suggest we do slightly more complicated. So actually, the largest mathematical possibility is…well I don’t know because I’m not a mathematician…but it’s actually more than 1000. Presumably the man would have sex with as many women as possible within the first three months of this hypothetical year so that there would be more women who could potentially become pregnant a second time within that year. Then, during the 4th through 9th months of the year, the pace would lessen. Finally, the last three months of the year the pace would quicken again so that all the women who became pregnant already once that year and gave birth could become pregnant a second time. Of course, we still have that little problem of biology and the fact that humans have actually developed so that this is not optimal, or even feasible.
Also, elbowbiter1 doesn’t even seem aware of the possibility of trans women and trans men being included in his little hypothetical.
Standard plea of validation: If you enjoyed this post, I encourage you to Like it, Tweet it and otherwise share it and comment on it. Or you can do all those things even if you didn’t like it. Either way, BRING ME MORE READERS.