Junk Biology Promotes Uselessness of Men
Sigh. The NYT lets its op/ed pages often be used to promote radical social agendas and celebrations. This time, the unimportance of men. But really, can't they at least get the biology right?. From "Men, Who Needs Them?"
by biology professor Greg Hampikian:
Think about your own history. Your life as an egg actually started in your mother’s developing ovary, before she was born; you were wrapped in your mother’s fetal body as it developed within your grandmother
never had a life as an egg
. Neither did any of you. The egg that was fertilized by our fathers' sperm was never "us," anymore than we were the sperm cell that fertilized that egg. And that isn't the end of the nonsense:
After the two of you [!!!!] left Grandma’s womb, you enjoyed the protection of your mother’s prepubescent ovary.
I wasn't in my mother's prepuescent ovary
any more than I would later be in my father's scrotum. Unbelievable. But Hampikian goes on:
Then, sometime between 12 and 50 years after the two of you left your grandmother, you burst forth and were sucked by her fimbriae into the fallopian tube. You glided along the oviduct, surviving happily on the stored nutrients and genetic messages that Mom packed for you. Then, at some point, your father spent a few minutes close by, but then left. A little while later, you encountered some very odd tiny cells that he had shed. They did not merge with you, or give you any cell membranes or nutrients — just an infinitesimally small packet of DNA, less than one-millionth of your mass.
I wasn't the egg!
And he uses this junk biology to celebrate the supposed uselessness of men, except as "entertainment" for women. Is it any wonder boys are having problems these days? How did the NYT editors let this nonsense get published? I know: Stupid question.
Of course he's a professor!