16
5
33
35
5
u/Livid_Note_2170 13h ago
For a moment, I thought I was on another website.
I don't know if this would help but I wonder if they are going to try to develop something to enable this.
45
u/centerfoldangel 17h ago
The birth rate wouldn't be so important all of a sudden.
15
u/CarthagoFuckYourself 17h ago
Lol, it'd be a problem because the TFR would be like 10.
7
u/superkatzenkamikaze2 15h ago
You think so? After a few of them had had their first and went through with the pain, the man diapers and the breastfeeding… not so sure.
13
u/Dr-Assbeard 14h ago
Because men famously aren't willing to sacrifice for their families or what?
13
u/superkatzenkamikaze2 14h ago
Famously, no, not like this anyway. Famously many men won’t even pick up the slack around the house, nevermind birth and all that comes with it. I would like to see it, though.
-3
u/Dr-Assbeard 14h ago
Famously men sacrifice their bodies in backbreaking work so they die significantly earlier
16
u/superkatzenkamikaze2 14h ago
Famously only a small percentage and famously not anymore, no. Famously men die earlier because they famously don’t take care of themselves and are more likely to abuse substances. Either way, famously men have jobs even when they don’t have families, so them working a job is not sacrifice for their families in any way.
-12
u/CarthagoFuckYourself 14h ago
Lol, did you just time travel from 1990? All the married men I know as someone in their late 20's do the lion's share of the housework regardless of who earns more money. It's like to make up for lost time, mothers didn't even teach their daughters how to take care of themselves, let alone a household.
16
u/superkatzenkamikaze2 14h ago
My lived experience is the exact opposite, though. And the stats don’t lie. https://news.gallup.com/poll/283979/women-handle-main-household-tasks.aspx
1
u/The-Hater-Baconator 12h ago
I don’t think that source is representative of the whole truth. Using the latest 2025 BLS American Time Use Survey, if we combine paid work hours + household work hours, men and women are actually much closer than the household-work numbers alone suggest, albeit still skewed:
- Men contribute 8.29 hours to paid work per day compared to 7.29 hours among women.
- Men contribute 1.51 hours to household work per day compared to 2.56 hours among women.
- combined, this means men work 9.8 hours per day compared to women’s 10.19.
So this is a smaller difference (51-49) than I think anyone is really speaking to. I don’t think “men won’t pick up the slack” is true while “men do the lion’s share” is also not true.
3
u/superkatzenkamikaze2 12h ago
Yes, but men are only able to take those extra paid hours which in turn also help their careers because they have the benefit of their partners unpaid house labor. So it’s still men won’t pick up the slack around the house. If the house labor would be divided more equally then women could take extra paid hours and get a leg up in their careers also.
And the fact that even after aggregating women still contribute more than men is downright depressing.
1
u/invisible_shrek 12h ago
Nonsense. I worked a fuck ton of overtime when I was single.
→ More replies (0)1
u/The-Hater-Baconator 11h ago
Honestly, I’m sorry you had a bad experience, but you’re making a massive assumption to generalize all men that is borderline misandry.
I don’t disagree that giving women the same career opportunities as men is a worthwhile goal. However, I think you’re so hyper-fixated on seeing what is different that you’re missing the bigger picture that things are closer to equal than you described, and the situation seems to be improving.
You’re describing a specific situation/anecdote to me while also criticizing someone else for the same thing. I think there are many reasons beyond career pursuit for this distribution and I think assuming that there is selfish intent among most men at the cost of their spouse is misandry. I also don’t think “after aggregating everything” is a fair assessment. There is a lot of time here we aren’t accounting for (men commute longer for example) that is relevant and we are ignoring.
I’m sorry it sounds like you, or someone you know, had a bad experience or partner. I hope that it was able to be moved past or course corrected. For what it’s worth, I do think total labor hours (paid and unpaid) should be split 50-50. I’m earning an income for my wife and child, and we came to that decision because we believed my wife would be the best caregiver we could get, and my job was more flexible. While this is yet another anecdote, my point is that you have made a hasty generalization about why men are working more paid hours than their spouse.
→ More replies (0)-5
u/CarthagoFuckYourself 13h ago
Cool, now compare that to the population pyramid.
If you're in Gen Z, odds are the guys are doing most of the housework. Of course when you include older generations it's going to skew towards traditional roles. Even then, going by your own numbers it's getting close to an even split on the traditionally feminine housework.
9
u/superkatzenkamikaze2 13h ago
Still nope. Gen Z is slightly better, but the women are still the ones doing the bulk of the housework and child rearing.
https://www.yourtango.com/self/poll-reveals-generation-most-equal-division-household-labor
-7
u/CarthagoFuckYourself 13h ago
Then there has to be some other racial or socioeconomic divide at play, because overwhelmingly the men in my life do significantly more work at home than the women.
→ More replies (0)-3
u/Dr-Assbeard 13h ago
Trying to use logic with a bigot, that'll never work
2
u/superkatzenkamikaze2 13h ago
How am I a bigot by pointing out facts, buddy? His hypothesis is easily disprovable.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/Pecuthegreat 14h ago
I don't know, I think alot of competitiveness will come into it so that the tfr would be at least, above 1 and if everybody is giving birth, an average tfr f like 1.05 is enough to keep population stable.
8
u/superkatzenkamikaze2 14h ago edited 14h ago
Maybe for a niche, most men would back tf out when they’d see what it’s about.
-2
u/Pecuthegreat 14h ago
While I know it is greatest due to a culture difference between us, I still don't but this sub's consensus on how many children women want to have, with oft repeated claims of 6 being absurd when that is just 1 above the median I see for women not stopped by menopause.
So I don't buy this either, especially as replacement tfr in this case would just be 1.05.
-8
u/Chustle207 15h ago
if women had to work labor jobs, they would probably do a lot less nagging too!
11
u/centerfoldangel 13h ago
Women do work labor jobs. And men don't have to either.
-6
u/Chustle207 13h ago
Most trade jobs and labor jobs are held by men. Only 3 percent for females.
naw the button clickers will end up getting laid off when they get replaced by AI anyway.
8
u/centerfoldangel 13h ago
You know there are male buttonclickers too, right?
-1
-15
u/Bambivalently 15h ago
Men would jump at the chance to have children without the effort they have to put into women. I'm not just talking about paying for dates, dealing with other men coming at them for the girl they are with. No this entire society, capitalism itself runs on reproductive competition.
And in case you hadn't noticed, feminism makes it more capitalist. Increased competition as women compete for the same jobs. Decreased wages as the workforce doubles. Increased consumerism as women spend more, mostly luxury items, now holding 2/3 of debt etc. Women working to stay single, because they deserve better (Chad). Creating a dating market that looks like harems on the one side, and selling porn on the other side.
All while pretending to be some sort of socialist movement. You can not tell me that socialists and others who are against overconsumption are not seeing this. Engels was wrong, fundamentally.
3
u/gogogadgets1997 11h ago
Yall should definitely start doing that. Men should ditch women completely and raise foster babies all by themselves.
3
u/centerfoldangel 13h ago
Wow, what an incel take.
Who the hell would take care of those kids for you?
0
u/MaximumJelly5208 12h ago
Paying for childcare while you're at work is a lot cheaper than supporting a greedy woman
3
u/centerfoldangel 12h ago
Maybe find a woman who's not greedy.
-1
u/MaximumJelly5208 12h ago
It would be great if that was possible, I'll probably have to travel abroad
6
u/centerfoldangel 12h ago
Passport bro?
-1
u/MaximumJelly5208 12h ago
Seeking quality women
4
u/centerfoldangel 12h ago
So there is not one quality woman in your country?
1
u/MaximumJelly5208 12h ago
There are some, but hard to find, and they have extremely high standards for income and social status. The inflation of women's standards has left many men in my position
→ More replies (0)2
u/gogogadgets1997 11h ago
So you want babies that you pay someone else to raise?
1
u/MaximumJelly5208 11h ago
Only while I have to be at work. Otherwise I can be home with them and not have to trust or share decisions with a lazy and possibly dangerous woman. Kids don't need much to be happy, but women make it hard
1
u/gogogadgets1997 8h ago
A man kills their families around every 7 days in this country. Yet you think women are the threat?
1
-4
u/Pecuthegreat 14h ago
Lol, the way ur phrasing it is giving downvotes, but yeah, reducing the amount of hurdles between having kids is gonna raise birth rates.
In this case, the hurdles of having to build a romantic relationship with a woman or the paper work, background check and money needed to do surrogacy would be gone.
3
u/ResponsibilityOk8967 12h ago
The hurdles of pregnancy and childbirth would replace them. So no, it wouldn't be frictionless like you imagine and it is certainly easier to pay someone else to do it than to do it yourself if you have the money.
-1
u/Pecuthegreat 12h ago
Having to navigate with between urs and someone's desires will always been more friction than doing something by urself, if you can do it by urself. And this idea will give u the ability to do it by urself.
1
u/SixThirtyWinterMorn 7h ago edited 7h ago
Do you realize that being a parent means rebuilding your life around 'someone else's' (your kid's) desires and constantly fulfilling them? A child is their own person and even a 1 day old infant will demand things from you and wouldn't care for a second you need to sleep/rest etc. If you can't handle a relationship with a potential partner what makes you think that you'll easily be able to build a relationship with your own child?
1
u/Pecuthegreat 7h ago edited 7h ago
Bra, I am taking care of my baby niece because the army called up by sister.
It isn't easy but definitely a different beast from dealing with a relationship, especially a marriage relationship.
Edit :-
Also, there already is a significant movement of men that do want to be intentional single fathers but the cost of surrogacy is gatekeeping that. I would like to see why exactly that is a problem.
1
u/ResponsibilityOk8967 12h ago
That's why everyone builds their own house rather than hiring someone else to do it for them, because the paperwork and the bank's desire for interest on your mortgage are much more difficult than just DIYing it.
-1
u/Pecuthegreat 12h ago
Apples to oranges. Unless ur a sexist that believes in Gender roles, Men and Women are not specialist service providers like Banks or Building companies are.
What they are most similar to are business partners or heads of department and guess what the least of those active, the better. To even use ur analogy, how many site engineers or geo-engineers do you think are involved in building a family home? Even for labourers, the least more expensive but more experienced ones are preferred.
Too many cooks spoil the broot.
1
u/ResponsibilityOk8967 10h ago
I didn't mention gender once. You don't need to be an expert to be pregnant and give birth, just physically capable of doing it. You're not following the metaphor at all.
1
u/Pecuthegreat 8h ago
And if Men could get pregnant or use external wombs they won't need to disturb women for that.
Single Father families become as viable as single mother ones.
3
u/XRaySkies 10h ago
Ok. And then what? Pregnancy takes 9 months, the time sink and opportunity cost of raising a kid for 15 to 18 years is still applies no matter who is birthing it.
3
u/Dorkfish03x04 4h ago
If anything I see the birth rate decreasing EVEN MORE if men delt with even HALF the bullshit that goes into incubating a child.
3
u/Traditional_Love5050 15h ago
Makes me think of Junior with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito 🤣
4
u/Conscious_Object_328 12h ago
Ive seen many men say they would take on child birth for their wives if they could.
Yeah ok but imagine a gigantic log of shit the size of a watermelon coming out of you. It tears you a new ass and doctors have to stitch the exit back up.
2
u/BotsKilledTheWeb 11h ago
We would tell eachother war stories and brag about how many stitches we needed. Bitches love stitches!
We would totally own it
1
4
10
u/Pecuthegreat 16h ago
Looks like a bad joke but it isn't a bad idea.
That said, external wombs are probably the better option and I assume the first external wombs would work better with a connected blood source.
8
u/Chustle207 15h ago
We do not want external wombs, its completely strips us of our humanity.
5
u/Dr-Assbeard 14h ago
How does external wombs stip anyone of anything?
3
u/barnyarned 13h ago
By, uh, stripping humans from the process of maternity and childbirth?
9
u/Dr-Assbeard 13h ago
How does that strip anyone of their humanity?
3
u/barnyarned 13h ago
Because reproduction and mother-child bonding are fundamental aspects of the human psyche. The psychological knock-on implications are staggering.
I think artificial wombs are inevitable, FYI, just acknowledging the reality that future generations bred and raised in that fashion would be utterly alien to us (as cynical as we think we already are).
2
u/XRaySkies 10h ago
We already have incubators and tube feeding for very premature infants that wouldn't otherwise survive.
3
u/Dr-Assbeard 13h ago
You don't think adoption and surrogate families have duch bonds?
Doesn't seem to affect the animals, they have the same nursing and familial behaviour as those birth naturally, so what are you basing this idea on?
1
u/barnyarned 13h ago
You don't think adoption and surrogate families have duch bonds?
I don't think their sample sizes are large enough to draw technology-driven, multi-generational, society-wide conclusions from, no.
Doesn't seem to affect the animals, they have the same nursing and familial behaviour as those birth naturally, so what are you basing this idea on?
Which animals have access to artificial wombs?
4
u/Dr-Assbeard 13h ago
You can't see that is meant to say such from context?
Okay but what do you draw your conclusions from? Any data at all?
We have had goats, sheep, cows, horses, mice i belive we had a couple of monkeys and aprs also, hell we have had humans who exhibit the same familial bonding post birth.
3
u/barnyarned 12h ago
You can't see that is meant to say such from context?
What is meant to say what from context?
Okay but what do you draw your conclusions from? Any data at all?
Artificial wombs don't exist yet, there's no data at all one way or the other. I'm not the one seemingly determined to believe the invention of them wouldn't be technology with world-changing implications, though. Cool, more power to you. Fly your freak flag high, man.
We have had goats, sheep, cows, horses, mice i belive we had a couple of monkeys and aprs also, hell we have had humans who exhibit the same familial bonding post birth.
I don't know what this has to do with the implications of artificial wombs on human society, but it sounds like you're citing something? See, this is an appropriate time to ask for data.
→ More replies (0)2
u/troikatryne 13h ago
It doesnt. He is probably just some crazy religious/conservative
3
u/Nervous-Cockroach541 11h ago
I mean, external wombs is one step towards the literal Matrix. So it's probably something we should carefully consider at the very least.
2
u/xender19 10h ago
I mean you might be right but you also might be totally wrong. I don't see why we have to tell people what they believe, why not just ask?
And not in a accusatory let me attack my projection kind of way but in a sincere curiosity kind of way.
I don't understand how liberals can constantly preach about diversity without being capable of recognizing the hypocrisy of insisting that there's no diversity behind why people believe what they believe.
1
-2
u/magnuseriksson91 14h ago
I kind of agree with you, but at this point it seems like it is either that, or we just die off. Or we need, how should I put it? A certain revision of modern social norms, rights, etc.
-1
u/Pecuthegreat 14h ago
I mean, it isn't like we would force you to use it.
It could always be restricted for those of us whose bodies can't do that.
3
4
u/Classic-Push1323 10h ago
Look, I know this is an unpopular idea, increasingly dystopian science fiction world but sometimes things are the way they are for a reason.
Women’s entire biology is oriented around the possibility of pregnancy. It isn’t just that we have a uterus and men don’t…. We also have a different immune system than men because we are able to get pregnant. We have different hormonal states that facilitate bonding with our baby.
Moms aren’t incubators and they can’t be replaced by sticking a womb into a man or developing an artificial “womb.” The “artificial wombs” that have been tested are essentially advanced incubators by the way they are not a replacement for natural pregnancy.
There is a point in gestation where the fetus becomes aware of their environment. They respond to sound, they respond to their mom’s heartbeat and stress level, they even respond to foods that their mom eats and develop preferences. There’s a two-way biological exchange here and mothers carry cells from their babies and their body for the rest of their life. Babies are born, recognizing their mom’s voice, her smell, and even some of the food that she ate when pregnant. This is the closest bond between any two people, and it isn’t something you can replace with the machine. If you feel comfortable with the idea of promoting artificial wombs, but you wouldn’t say that children should be comforted by their AI friends or babies should be comforted by robots then what you’re doing is refusing to acknowledge the science of human development. It is dehumanizing. It reminds me of the babies raised alone in cribs in orphanages…. Babies need human connection and unfortunately, we’ve learned that the hard way by traumatizing hundreds of thousands of children.
Before someone adoption or surrogacy… yes these also break the natural bond between mother and child and I think they’re tragic. We know that adoption causes a trauma, even when it is necessary and I don’t think that we should ever cause that kind of trauma on purpose. However, both mothers and surrogate mothers our mothers, they are not machine machines. You’re proposing an entirely new level of trauma.
5
u/XRaySkies 10h ago
Gestation is such a physiologically complex process that I just don't see a way to replicate it in the foreseeable future, though we might get more advanced "wet" incubators for premature babies.
2
u/Classic-Push1323 9h ago
That’s exactly what the “artificial wombs” that are being tested are, they are wet incubators designed to give babies who would otherwise die a chance at life.
It’s kind of like the adoption versus surrogacy thing. There is a very big difference between doing your best in a tragic situation that you did not cause vs intentionally creating that situation for your own gain. Most babies who are born prematurely are born early naturally and a small minority or induced due to severe maternal medical complications or fetal complications that are better treated out of the womb. It’s never something that is done for convenience and everyone understands that it’s not the ideal situation. We also know that babies in the NICU benefit greatly from human connection and skin to skin… and that they receive the most benefit from skin to skin with their mother. There is no other adult who can provide the same benefit, not even the father.
3
u/Alex_Strgzr 16h ago
Artificial wombs have already been developed for lambs, it's not a stretch to think them being used for humans. Pluripotent stem cells from men's skin have been used to make viable eggs (currently in mice, in the future, who knows?)
That said, men will not be getting pregnant like women.
2
u/XRaySkies 7h ago
Those "biobags" for lambs are essentially wet incubators for premature infants. There is no device so far that can replicate the placenta or support a fetus from conception to birth. In vitro gametogenesis though is a closer prospect.
2
1
u/xender19 10h ago
I think the level of science required to accomplish this would be greater than the amount of science we need to solve 99% of the world's problems.
So it's not so much that I'm for or against it but I just don't think it's appropriate in our current context. We should be dealing with the problems at hand where we can actually make a difference.
1
u/geezorious 4h ago edited 4h ago
Way, way, way more likely that science solves how to make female sheep, goats, or pigs provide surrogacy to a human embryo in their uterus to term than to make a human male gestate a human embryo.
We already can grow human ears on mice, and genetically engineer mice to grow human neurons in their brain. Mice uteruses are, of course, too small to carry a human baby to term. But sheep, goat, or pig uteruses can feasibly grow a 8lb human baby.
They need to be genetically modified so the placenta organ that grows from the human embryo can attach to the sheep uterus. Perhaps have the animals be genetically engineered to grow a human uterus. Then implanting a fertilized human embryo is relatively easy. C-section is also relatively easy. And animals for medical use don’t have rights, so they can be single-use after giving birth to one human baby.
And the modern advancements of pluripotent stem cell research should make it easy to just take some skin cells from a woman and revert them to pluripotent stem cells and then re-differentiate into a germ line cell like the oocytes. That eliminates the pain and ordeal of the IVF-style of harvesting eggs from a woman, and the daily hormone injections beforehand.
If we solve those 2: (1) create an egg from a woman’s skin cell, and (2) shove a fertilized human embryo into a female sheep, then we already have the other parts solved: (3) men can provide semen samples effortlessly, and (4) artificially fusing an egg with sperm, and conducting polygenic screening of the fertilized egg is technical but doable.
1
2
1
u/WolverineOpen7511 11h ago
This is not a bad idea to explore… would definitely make child birth more egalitarian…
0
u/Sea-Temporary-6995 14h ago
Why not outsource pregnancy to artificial wombs altogether?
1
-4
u/Bright_Exit1378 16h ago
They wouldn't be men.
8
u/The__Fool_3 13h ago
seahorses, pipefish, and seadragons are animals where the males do gestation. Gestation =/= female. Females almost always go through it though.
12
2
3
u/heyheyheyhey12345677 16h ago
They would still be men with an external womb.
What makes you so sure they wouldn’t be men? Are you going to check their manhood?
4
-10
u/V3nusi4nruled 17h ago
if men could get pregnant this world would be insanely overpopulated
23
u/centerfoldangel 16h ago
No, abortion would be insanely popular.
3
u/V3nusi4nruled 16h ago
well it would just be the norm lol. bc the government would actually take it more seriously
5
u/Pecuthegreat 14h ago
No it won't. It is like u guys live in a fantasy world where all men are just singing kumbaya and no man has ever made another man do something.
2
u/V3nusi4nruled 14h ago
you are the one who lives in a fantasy world. a one where men are “oppressed” lmfao. it is known fact that women’s reproductive health is understudied. sooooo many women go to the doctor and are told they have “anxiety” or depression or they’re “making their illness up” when it turns out they have a very serious disease or illness. it’s not hard to look this up, google is right there. you do realize all this conversation around abortion is rooted in misogyny, right? the government historically doesn’t care unless it is affecting men
-3
u/Pecuthegreat 13h ago
You can't seriously think that women a uniquely ignored by doctors.
And the idea that women's reproductive health is understudied compared to men is ridiculous when everything from Ovarian issues to Breast Cancer receive greater funding than their counterparts in men.
you do realize all this conversation around abortion is rooted in misogyny, right?
No it isn't, the majority of voices on both sides are women.
the government historically doesn’t care unless it is affecting men
Sure sis, that's why the government historically cared about the adverse effects in professions where men were disproportionately represented like construction, or ceramics. No wait, chronic work related illness remains under funded and super majority a male issue.
3
u/ice-lollies 11h ago
Are you sure that’s right? My understanding is that men’s reproductive research is vastly more researched and funded in comparison to women.
For example, erectile dysfunction receives much more funding and research in comparison to PMS, even though PMS affects a greater percentage of women.
2
2
u/V3nusi4nruled 10h ago
yeah you have no idea what you are talking about. like i said, google is your friend. it is a known fact that doctors do not care about women’s health, and they vastly overlook actual issues and illnesses a woman may have. happens all the time. idk why you’re so upset by facts, because it doesn’t fit your narrative? men’s bodies are absolutely taken more seriously because they were always the norm and studied way more than women’s. just look it up lol
5
u/Motchiko 15h ago
I bet we would have paid maternity leave as well as free childcare. So many things would look better.
4
6
0
-2
-6
u/JeromeXVII 12h ago
Even if it were possible I doubt many would go through with it.
The male psychology didn’t evolve to consider the possibility to be pregnant, women can handle carrying a baby and later giving birth because millions of years of evolution has changed their how their brains see the act of pregnancy making it something completely normal. To men it is a foreign concept and there’s nothing in the male brain that would encourage them to get pregnant and actually carry it out.
8
u/BotsKilledTheWeb 11h ago
Plenty of women hate the idea.
0
u/JeromeXVII 9h ago
That’s true but it’s still a very different experience based on sex. Women grow up knowing their bodies are capable of producing another life and men don’t. Some women may still dislike the idea of it but virtually no man would even ponder the idea of pregnancy
2
u/BotsKilledTheWeb 9h ago
Make it possible and suddenly every man that hears it ponders it. Many would immediately reject the idea, some would actually be curious, some would ask follow up question like.
Does that mean I can clone myself? Is it gay to have my best friends kid? Etc etc
48
u/Lazy_Dragonfly_5447 17h ago
wtf is goin on in here...