Under a headline: Men, Who Needs Them? a professor of biology and criminal justice at Boise State University posits that men are no longer necessary to the survival of the species.

If a woman wants to have a baby without a man, she just needs to secure sperm (fresh or frozen) from a donor (living or dead). The only technology the self-impregnating woman needs is a straw or turkey baster, and the basic technique hasn’t changed much since Talmudic scholars debated the religious implications of insemination without sex in the fifth century. If all the men on earth died tonight, the species could continue on frozen sperm. If the women disappear, it’s extinction.

Ultimately the question is, does “mankind” really need men? With human cloning technology just around the corner and enough frozen sperm in the world to already populate many generations, perhaps we should perform a cost-benefit analysis.

I suppose that's true. Even more true, is that men are the only minority group whose extinction can be kidded about in the pages of the NYT. It is hardly likely the paper of record would run a column asking the burning question, Blacks, Who Needs Them? Or Jews, Who Needs Them? 

The author points out...

... women live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense. If men were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?

Of course, nobody in their right mind would buy a man. Fortunately, since we officially got rid of slavery, men are no longer considered property. But it is fun to dehumanize them for the sake of making a point. What that point is, I have no idea.

UPDATE: Great minds think alike... skip down to the second item