The whole damn POINT of the article was that feminists DO NOT want to "end men"...

Hmm, that's too bad. Maybe they should? I'm a male feminist, and I think getting rid of men is a great idea whose time has come (i.e. in a controlled, gradual way through attrition via natural mortality and embryonic sex selection, once advanced, artificial reproductive technologies have been perfected.)

artificial sperm, hasn't tried getting laid lately.

Men are soooo easy. Why buy sperm when it is so easy to get it for free?

However, if we are talking about high-quality designer sperm, why not? Once we get our boobs done, our thighs suctioned and out frown lines botoxed, why shouldn't we strive to find perfect sperm. As a matter of fact, if we can get the last, the first three may not be necessary. I keep hearing that women aren't nearly as "visual" as men.

Because two gay women can have a child together that is genetically linked to both of them. There is also the fact that the male sperm donor has some legal standing in the situation that might be unwelcome, although this could be presumably fixed by changing the law.

Once women become a large enough majority men won't be able to do anything to stop them from doing this if a large enough majority of this majority wants to. Suppose a coalition of women who want to keep men around and whatever men there are "vote" to keep men, what would the circumstances of their "keeping" need to be in order to get a majority to agree? The most realistic question now is: when men are still half the population will laws be passed and enforced to prevent this situation from developing. Keep in mind that these laws would need to infringe on basic principles of choice in order to be effective.

Or is it like that woman who claimed she was getting pregnant and having abortions as an art project?

Honestly, if true, this is a horribly ill-conceived idea. If you want your friends to help out, go to them quietly, one at a time. Not that it's a matter to be ashamed of, but I really think, ten or twenty years down the line, it's not something the party-giver will be glad to have celebrated. Yes, I know it isn't the abortion being celebrated, but still, you are associating what should be a somber, well-thought out, difficult decision with an opportunity to get wasted.

I can see why right wingers would be upset. I am upset. And I think the commentators are being way to easy on this.

That comment was for the abortion thread

This blog in general and this post in particular are propaganda outlets for radical feminists....hence the feedback from antifems. Stick around for awhile, you'll pick up on the model: Misandric headline, details surrounding misandry, closing personal anecdotes that make it all OK to be "sarcastic" about. Go look up the definition of propaganda, it's the only reason this ghetto exists.

it's about discussing/exploiting (depending on your point of view) hot button issues. Propaganda is manipulative for a specific purpose and usually the real purpose is something other than the stated purpose. Usually for example the extremism of ones "own side" is not acknowledged any more than it has to be to credibly deny it. Open discussion usually plays no role.

If it's not propaganda, you have to ask why only one side of the gender beat is presented. The discussion is happening in the letters section, but there is only one side presented by the authors in this women good/men bad blog. Open debate is about providing a more diverse view than the angst of middle class white radical feminists.

I have been here for a while, and read virtually every post on Broadsheet, and I just don't see the misandry that you guys are always harping on about. Like in this article:

"Sarcasm aside, it's more than just a warped view of humanity that makes the "end of men" conclusion absurd -- the science does, too."

Now how in the world does that read as anything but a denunciation of the argument that feminists want to destroy all men? Unless you think the author is admitting shes warped. How is it misandrist for TCF to mock newspaper headline writers for misrepresentaing a pro-male reproduction scientific breakthrough? If she REALLY was anti-men, wouldn't she say she supported the "end of men" instead of calling it "absurd"?

Women, go for it! Those of you who wish to live with your sisters and give up the male play-thingy, go for it! Leave us the women who need what we have and they don't. They will appreciate us and ours more.

As for having the kids in lesbian communities, using turkey-basters do it! Let the little "basteds" be your pleasure to raise and to support. Just make sure you produce enough women to keep us happy; and enough men to keep yourselves happy.

It all sounds good to me, wink, wink!

Okay, that does it. Is 'bland assumpion' too corny? How about Women's inventions like Velcro and windshield wipers? Look at the names on the patents, boys. Oh, and the Internet? There are women right here in Seattle who are just as proud of their 'Patent Cubes' (a Microsoft pat on the... back) as any guy I know. One of the co-authors of mIRC is a friend of mine, and she was female last time I checked. I assume you use IRC? Don't give us no Scheiß about inventions, buster

the same cannot be said of the interest women have in men. So screaming "sexism" "objectification" "devaluation" is always going to provoke a reaction. The question is will it be possible to force men to simply adopt and reflect a feminine(ist) perspective entirely without any reference at all to their own emotions and experience (tell me again why is it again that men are so emotionally out of it) and if they can be forced to do this will they be sincere or will they be faking it.