When violence is needed - which it is periodically - women are so used to offloading the unfortunate work onto men, then complaining about it, they've come to believe this is true.

With no men to do the rare-but-necessary violence needed, women will simply become more violent. From sociopathic early teens who stab their girl-friends to death, to female cops who shoot their female partner for leaving them for another woman, the violence and sociopathy that is highlighted as something men do will simply be done by women instead when there's no men around.

Life on recruit difficulty.

Which company was there? I feel like reading the story will be hilarious.

I don't remember. In fact I'd really like to know which company this was so I can read and simultaneously laugh and spike my blood pressure at the sheer idiocy.

Not surprised. My work over the years has been in majority-female places and dear God if there's an argument for women being no better than children it will be found in every office where women make up 80% or more of the workforce.

Ironically, it seems like a nihilistic fantasy

Turns out, without men, a lot of conflicts simply don't escalate the way they do in our reality. Whenever problems crop up, Dhaliwal's women greet them with easygoing wryness. In fact, the characters are a bit too wry, to the point where they're undifferentiated.

"Do you ever wonder how long we can ignore potential extinction with humor?" Layla asks her partner Lara in one comic. "At some point, the jokes will run out and we'll have to deal with it." Lara reflects for a panel, then responds the way any woman would if she felt completely uninhibited and free of male judgment. She farts.

The extinction of men represents the potential extinction of humanity but it's ok because men are mean or something

To paraphrase Camille Paglia, if we lived in a matriarchy we'd be living in mud huts.

And nobody can kill any spiders.

Women rely on men to solve problems for them. The problem with many modern women is that this reliance has evolved into entitlement, and they take men for granted. Worse than this, they also blame everything negative on men, including their own insecurity and discomfort, and become filled with resentment.

This is what happens when you have a society that refuses to chastise or shame women when it's due. Society today only exists to build women up; even when it's undeserved. This harms women as much as it harms men.

And they'd die off in a single generation without men to continue the species.

Comfortable jobs are female jobs.

All jobs are male jobs. By giving the safe, clean, and low stress jobs to women we have relegated the lower tier men to despair and suicide.

Weak men know they are weak and if they arent degenerates are properly ashamed of that weakness. But, at least in the past, could justify their existence by spending their effort and energy at some endeavor that meaningfully supported the stronger men.

I've taught female family members the "break the vacuum seal" bottom slap and the "dent the lid with a bread knife" techniques so many times over.

Still, they can't do it because "my hands are too weak". Too weak to tap a bread knife?

Some women just never want to learn how to fish.

That happened on Survivor or some other show.

Yeah, this sounds like some tumblerina saw it in a comic store, scanned it, and ripped off the premise, whole cloth, without doing anything interesting to explore what it would look like.

It's more than that. Female gametes are produced during development and are extremely limited in number. Ticking clock metaphor, etc. Male gametes are produced almost the entire adult life repeatedly. This is more important than the general public seem to realise because it's the main source of genetic variation due to sheer numbers involved.

Generating countless sperm means each single genetic packet may be genetically unique. Sure you can have siblings that are extremely similar in phenotype, I knew 2 brothers that were 3 years apart where the younger brother was the spitting image of the elder, but they will still be genetically unique and that's more likely because of the genetic material from the father than the mother.

Identical siblings is a result of something happening on the mother's end post fertilisation when a zygote splits into distinct separation embryos rather than simply dividing properly during development and doesn't serve to increase genetic diversity for obvious reasons.

The touted bone marrow donor method, or any other, for the creation of artificial zygotes won't have anywhere near the production capability of those found naturally and are still just as likely to cause genetic stagnation because all that does is take 2 existing genetic sources and combine them. Recombination during meiosis produces new genetic material which is the entire point behind sexual reproduction over asexual ala Red Queen theory. You don't want genetic copies over and over because the risk to diseases and other genetic components skyrockets as monocultures are piss easy to affect for viruses, bacteria, and whatever else.

tl;dr artificial genetic production doesn't exist. Proposed methods merely retain existing genetic templates and don't hybridise them anywhere near enough to create new ones which are important to avoid genetic stagnation and collapse from diseases.

That's an interesting concept.

In genetics, it's more-or-less accepted that the Y chromosome is a shriveled up useless chromosome and geneticist males only have one functional sex chromosome (the X chromosome) while females have a functional copy and a backup.

Which is why so many sex-linked mutation diseases disproportionately affect men (it only takes one mutation in the X chromosome to express the disease).

But in terms of real world phenotype, there definitely seems to be many characteristics and advantages beyond the concept of male being one X, female being two.