Post: #1

http://www.vice.com/read/is-reducing-the...r-problems

Quote:a 22-year-old criminology student with a three-year-old. One angry day in 2012 she took to the Internet to outline the brutal concept of International Castration Day. After posting it on YouTube she stepped out for a coffee. Returning home a few hours later, she found that all gnashing male hell had broken loose.

Her argument was that only through the reduction of the male population to between 1 and 10 percent of their current number we can approach “true equality”.

While she now derides International Castration day as silly, the internet had met The Femitheist. Two years later she is an emergent cult leader, a ball-stepping villainess, or clear-thinking realist—depending who you ask. Today she continues to support the reduction of the male population and generally courts outrage and devotion through her website and YouTube channel. She’s also 200 pages into what she’s hoping will be her 700 page manifesto outlining the philosophy of Femitheism. It’s tentatively titled The Ratio.

VICE: I assume The Ratio refers to your belief the male population should be reduced to between by 90 percent.
The Femitheist: I believe that conventional equality, with a 50/50 female-to-male ratio, is an inferior system. Essentially my ideas lead to men being made a special class—a far more valued class—having choice of a myriad of women due to the difference in sex ratio. That is my intention. Men would be made more valuable, and their quality of life would be dramatically improved. They would have a subsidised existence if you will, akin to going on an all-expenses paid vacation that lasts from birth to death.

Assuming people are down for that, how could you reduce the male population by that much? Are you talking culling or selective breeding over years?
Obviously men comprise a substantial portion of the victims of violent crime and participate heavily in war, so there will always be deaths there—but certainly not culling. I don't advocate selective slaughter or brutal processes.

So how would you achieve it?
Further research into designer babies will be necessary: manipulating gender or sex, prenatal sex discernment, sex-selective abortions, development of dual-female progeny (babies created from two mothers), and numerous other mechanisms will be utilised in order to achieve these aspirations. They won’t be enforced or mandated to achieve the goal in the short-term, but merely heavily encouraged in the early stages. Unless one opposes abortion, there's little ethical reason to find that too outrageous a proposition. The maths has already been done on all of the genetic and population-sustainment-related issues: population bottleneck, inbreeding, mutations, et cetera. Everything works out in favour of my ideas. I've been meticulous and cautious. I've had the work reviewed by people who are experts—or at least extremely knowledgeable—in biology and genetics, and I've received confirmation that it all works out.

That’s in theory, what about in practice?
It'll require the re-teaching of everyone—female and male—in classrooms, homes, through literature, media, art, and networks. It is a process that would take decades, generations, and perhaps even a few centuries. Nevertheless, these are things that should be done to forge a new and vastly superior world. My mission is to devise and describe a framework for the carrying out and success of such objectives.

What kind of men would you choose for breeding? Dou you base selection on physical or mental characteristics?
The most suitable men would simply be those who are fit in both body and mind. This is also related to genetic modification.

Genetic engineering is already taking place by way of tests given to couples when they marry to prevent the passing of dangerous genetic material. There is no doubt such concepts will expand as we understand more about how the genome actually works. Healthy and fit men will always be ideal, but not "brutes," which has more to do with mental attributes than physical. Anyone can lift weights. Any criteria decided upon as the quintessential grade would have to be extensively defined and revised as time goes on, or as science advances and the human species and its needs evolve.

Would men be kept in isolation like stud horses?
I believe we must remove men from the community and place them in their own specific sections of society, akin to subsidised or state-funded reservations, so they can be redefined. We can make not only men safer, but women as well. By subsidising said reservations through the state we can provide men with activities, healthcare, entertainment, shelter, protection, and everything that one could ever require in life. This will remove conventional inequality from society. By reducing the number of men to 10 percent of the total population, their socio-biovalue will be raised. They will live out their lives happily and safely, and male disposability will be a thing of the past.

But don’t men have value beyond breeding?
If technology has not advanced to a point where labour can be done without men, the few men that are necessary for said labour will be allowed to work on the outside of the reservations to complete whatever tasks necessary—if they wish.

Like slaves?
Not as slaves, simply as workers performing a duty, in the same way workers today do. Only without the need for monetary reimbursement as they would have no need for such a thing. This would be highly monitored and regulated.

What about the ambitions of the individual? Some men may aspire to more than luxury breeding pens.
Some would argue it would be a dystopian world because it wouldn't be free in the present conventional sense. However that is misguided. It will be utopian because it will be a world almost without conflict where people cooperate and are treated properly within a well-engineered and long-forged system. If everything is great for almost everyone the point is null. Survival and socio-organic wellbeing are the most important elements in life. Diversity of principles and standards is only necessary in a world of multiple nations, cultures, societies, and religions due to fear of oppression. So, how is this world any better? Because some people have potential opportunities to do certain things?

That’s kind of depressing.
The purpose of living is merely to persist and perpetuate our species. If someone is willing to give you all you require to survive and live comfortably, simply because you exist, then you have already achieved all that truly matters.

Doesn’t all this dismiss the notion of companionship and the family unit?
Heterosexual companionship and the nuclear family model, yes.

What do you propose as alternatives?
Children should be raised communally and by the state. The nuclear family model is a breeding ground of deceptions, mediocrities, treacheries, hypocrisy, and violence. It needs to be abolished. Bigotry, prejudice, and antiquated convictions are passed down through each generation. The conventional family unit indoctrinates our youth and drains them of their potential. My solution would be to assign children caretakers whose task would simply be to provide shelter, food, clothing, and protection for each child—all of which would be yielded by the state. Perfect girls will be conceived, developed, and engineered in state-owned breeding centers. They will be bound together in a communal venue under the instruction and control of female savants.

But realistically that’s not what’s best for the kids.
Children must be provided a proper education, a sex-separated education that will focus on developing real-world skills and capacities for concept building. They will be taught the reality of true equality, production, labour, and will be provided a better understanding of sexuality, science, culture and ethnicity. If children are made wards of the state with assigned caretakers, not only will it be easier to undo the constraints of bigotry and the other archaic beliefs that are passed down from parents to their children, but children can be used to monitor the older generations in regard to the propagation of bigoted and antediluvian values. It is about creating a unified perception.

Does this assume all women would automatically form lesbian relationships?
Relationships between females and males have been different throughout all of history. Associations between women and men differ with the time and popular socialisation. Today that is not common or normalised, but as time passes more women are interested in other women or are willing to indulge and experiment.

Then you think sexual orientation can be designed?
Absolutely. I believe sexual orientation, like most but not all things, comes from socialisation as well as genetics—with a heavier influence from genetics. Anyone who contends that sexual orientation is purely genetic is either disingenuous or foolish. Eventually, we will be able to engineer people to a greater preference for their own sex. It seems to me that a lot of women are far more open to homosexuality than men, or at least are more willing to experiment, and why is that?

I’m not sure, you think it’s genetic?
Perhaps it's partially genetic, but it's also due to an ingrained fear that men have of appearing homosexual because that isn't what a “man” is supposed to be. With the combined forces of social and genetic engineering, we can easily reshape and mold human sexuality into whatever we desire.

lol.

Post: #2

"k"

Post: #3

90% of males aren't truly living, so she's already gotten her wish.

Post: #4

Lol

Post: #5

Wow. This woman is fucking insane. She's advicating slavery based on gender, which is pretty much what the radical neo-feminists want most.

Post: #6

Awww that southern accent is so adorable

Post: #7

She's relying on a ton of genetic engineering or genetic engineers to make her nonsense work.

Too bad there won't be any.

Post: #8

A woman's idea of "equality" is always being in a more powerful position than a man, and having it done is such a way where she doens't have to work for it, but instead have it given to her.

This woman has obviously taken things to the extreme. However when you take a general idea to an extreme, it's flaw/hidden agenda/contradiction is exposed.

Ask Hilary Clinton or a host of other "moderates" how we'll know when gender equality exists, they will surely answer, "When a woman is President". This doesn't ruffle the feathers nearly as much reducing the male species, but it's basic foundation is the same.

In reality, gender equality already exists because there is nothing stopping a woman from being elected if she earns it.

Whenever a woman starts espousing gender equality, she is siding with this kind of nefarious agenda.

Post: #9

WYB ?

Post: #10

(08-18-2014 12:44 PM)Constitution45 Wrote:  WYB ?

She is kinda cute. I would be happy to throw her in the hate-fuck thread.

Post: #11

I haven't read so much pent-up sexual frustration in a while.

I can just hear her pussy calling out across the universe for alpha cock.

Post: #12

(08-18-2014 12:44 PM)Constitution45 Wrote:  WYB ?

Her face is okay, but she's far too crazy. Remember: you don't screw crazy. Crazy screws you.

Post: #13

If she understood what having 9 to 90 times as many women as there would be men and "male privilege" ... eh. then again she's a she and that is that

Post: #14

If she faces off with my wife, 100% of her will be.

Post: #15

She's just turning into a monster because 1. She's a single mom 2. She got knocked up at 19 and the dude ran off.

Post: #16

Translation: "for every man I see I want to fuck, there's 9 other creepy men that I don't want to look at."

Sailer's rule at its finest.

Post: #17

This woman sounds a lot like Valerie Solanas.
Who'll take my money that she shoots someone and gets sent to mental hospital too?

Also, a glaring category error that should have been obvious: reduce the male population by 90%, and the remainder could easily sustain the birth rate.

Post: #18

Just some more shit to ignore.
Don't click the link or you're just going to add incentive for more of this bullshit.

Post: #19

Post: #20

I've met several women over the last four years who've mentioned that rapists, molesters and men who watch child porn should be castrated. Some of them even feel that guys who watch regular porn should be castrated. Seems like a strange but growing belief among millennial feminists.

So much for women being 'fair, merciful and nurturing'.

Post: #21

(08-18-2014 02:17 PM)xpatplayer Wrote:  So much for women being 'fair, merciful and nurturing'.

These things aren't women, more like harpies with pussies.

Young, single mothers like this bitch are the lowest of the low, their pussies are the eclair in the trash that only dumpster divers will relish.

Post: #22

^I wouldn't be so quick to judge most women so fairly, my friend. Let me explain why:

Most "good-girls" are masters of maintaining appearance. They never show you what they're thinking but maintain a facade instead. The ugly/ batshit-crazy ones are the ones who say what's on their mind, like the lovely Southern Belle we are talking about.

Most women do have negative feelings for everyone except their family, men they love and children. They just don't express it. Ever heard a woman gossip about her friends? That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Young single mothers, like the aforementioned lovely blonde, are so affected by the burden of parenthood that they rationalize it as everyone's fault but their own. That's why the negativity and victimization.

Think about it. Watching all your friends go out several times a month, party and sleep with the ripped guys at the club/ popular guys in the town while you're stuck at home with a toddler who can't seem to learn how to use the damn toilet.

Of course you're going to get angry and of course you're going to rationalize that its not your own fault, especially if you're not mature enough to ask the guy you're sleeping with to wrap it up.

A harpy is merely a woman who cannot keep her negativity to herself.

If a woman loves you, she will go to the ends of the earth just to make you a little happy.

If a woman hates you, she will go to the ends of the earth just to make you suffer.

If a woman is indifferent to to your existence, she won't go out of her way to help you out.

Post: #23

I don't find this fucking funny.
This piece of shit is basically advocating mass murder and genocide (or "gendercide" if I can call it that). And she needs to be charged criminally with:

Terroristic threats
Criminal threats
Civil rights violations under the US Code

It's not a fucking joke, it's not cute, it's part of a mentality that we all knew would eventually lead to these kind of statements.

These people are inciting violence, and need to know where this will lead.

Post: #24

This is fucking scary.

Post: #25

Decimation which actually means "to kill one out of ten". Was a common punitive war and populace control tool in ancient times. Stalin also utilized it on some Military units that would retreat when attacked (this was 1941 when the USSr was severely outmatched).

It was alway the males however that was culled. I guess this spit stain of a girl got her inspiration from barbarians and dictators.