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? Do 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.
TLR; "Feminist" wants to reduce male population by 90% and enslave the rest as a stable breeding population.
This isn't feminism, this is A. the plot of the Anne Rice novel "Queen of the Damned" turned into a political movement and B. crazier then a weasel stuffed in a redneck's overalls.
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.
This is one of the most naive things I've ever read.
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.
This is one of the most naive things I've ever read.
She corrects her references to a utopia to 'eutopia' in the 'corrections' link above, because apparently: "(eutopia = good place, utopia = no place)" and "And as an aside: yes, I draw a distinction between “eutopia” and “utopia,” and prefer the former because it is more accurate in terms of what I discuss and propose. They changed my spelling to the latter."
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.
This is one of the most naive things I've ever read.
Considering how some women I know fight and hold grudges, it would bring about an era of pain and suffering the likes of which would make the Hatfield and McCoy feud look like a friendly disagreement.
Considering how some women I know fight and hold grudges, it would bring about an era of pain and suffering the likes of which would make the Hatfield and McCoy feud look like a friendly disagreement.
Yeah, the fact that women are relatively less aggressive than men has as much to do with gender norms as it does genetics. Take those norms away and I guarantee there would be no appreciable decline in global violence.
Considering how some women I know fight and hold grudges, it would bring about an era of pain and suffering the likes of which would make the Hatfield and McCoy feud look like a friendly disagreement.
Yeah, the fact that women are relatively less aggressive than men has as much to do with gender norms as it does genetics. Take those norms away and I guarantee there would be no appreciable decline in global violence.
I'd be willing to bet female on female violence would rise immensely, with a male population reduced to 10%.
I'd be willing to bet female on female violence would rise immensely, with a male population reduced to 10%.
Especially given that, with such a small male population, female homosexual tension would become a much more significant issue. Particularly if, as it sounds this woman intends, heterosexual activity was (for women) limited to reproduction.
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.
This is one of the most naive things I've ever read.
The only thing that comes close is the girl that spent an entire semester trying to defend her proposal for a global minimum wage. I wish I still had copies of her papers, they were comedy gold.
The only thing that comes close is the girl that spent an entire semester trying to defend her proposal for a global minimum wage. I wish I still had copies of her papers, they were comedy gold.
TAing undergrad philosophy courses must have been a trip.
TAing undergrad philosophy courses must have been a trip.
Philosophy and political science. Though, honestly, the philosophy courses weren't too bad because nearly every student phoned their papers in by regurgitating the material (though some of the errors were hilarious), and the ones that didn't expressed deliberate curiosity*. Political science, on the other hand...well Obama had recently been elected and many of the papers were more vitriol than reason as a result. I remember a student arguing that the the purpose of the Electoral college was to get Obama elected. That student failed.
*It helped that I was only 24, and so didn't come off as being imperious when I shot their ideas down.
jasper76 wrote: Ridiculous article aside, lemme make a wild guess. You guys don't eat ice cream very often.
I love Ice Cream too much. Seriously, I dont buy it now because I cant stop eating the stuff. Its like a drug to me. My partner hates it because we are now (finally) an ice cream free household. I dont get how it relates to a story that should be a crazy novel and not someones personal opinions though
Considering how some women I know fight and hold grudges, it would bring about an era of pain and suffering the likes of which would make the Hatfield and McCoy feud look like a friendly disagreement.
Yeah, the fact that women are relatively less aggressive than men has as much to do with gender norms as it does genetics. Take those norms away and I guarantee there would be no appreciable decline in global violence.
No, Dogma. Women are much more peaceful than men. They never fight with each other ever. Your post reminded me of this brutality. Probably NSFW due to violence, but there is no gore, blood, or nudity.
jasper76 wrote: Ridiculous article aside, lemme make a wild guess. You guys don't eat ice cream very often.
I love Ice Cream too much. Seriously, I dont buy it now because I cant stop eating the stuff. Its like a drug to me. My partner hates it because we are now (finally) an ice cream free household. I dont get how it relates to a story that should be a crazy novel and not someones personal opinions though
The thing about ice cream is if you don't eat it, you start to hate it. And you start to hate the misguided souls in the world who think that all there is to life is eating ice cream, and that ice cream should be the only food anyone should ever eat in the world. The truth is there should be steak, and salad, and ice cream too. Ice cream is delicious, and I don't care what health professionals say, it's good for you. If you stop hating ice cream, and be friendly enough to your local ice cream dealers, eventually , you will find one that will sell you ice cream, and trust me, it will open a whole new world of deliciosity to your life. But first, you have to be respectful to your ice cream dealer. Treat them like fellow human beings, and eventually one will sell you a cone. But if all you can say to your ice cream dealer is rude and denigrating, you'll more than likely never get any ice cream.
It's a beautiful world of all kinds of flavors of ice cream. Just be nice to your ice cream dealer, and you will find out.
And I'm only talking here to the ice cream haters, not the ice cream lovers.
The whole world will end up like some (even) freakier version of Dr Moreau's island….. this bit of the article made me chuckle "Nothing says “peace” quite like genital mutilation, eugenics, and murder. Oh, and slavery. There’s slavery, too."
Although I'm sure that a planet dominated by women will work just fine. After all, women have been credited with inventing Chocolate Chip Cookies, Nystatin, The Circular Saw, The Dishwasher (I gak you not), oh and Kevlar…. See? Everything you could possibly need for a brave new world!
What I love about this is that no one stops to help until the guy comes in and stops the five on one, then a few get involved to have him stop. I also like that the guy the stopped the 5 on 1 went full Zap Rowsdower on them, and didn't treat them like they were children.
Considering how some women I know fight and hold grudges, it would bring about an era of pain and suffering the likes of which would make the Hatfield and McCoy feud look like a friendly disagreement.
Yeah, the fact that women are relatively less aggressive than men has as much to do with gender norms as it does genetics. Take those norms away and I guarantee there would be no appreciable decline in global violence.
No, Dogma. Women are much more peaceful than men. They never fight with each other ever. Your post reminded me of this brutality. Probably NSFW due to violence, but there is no gore, blood, or nudity.
View the patriarchy in action. How dare that sexist, misogynist pig use physical violence to assert power over those poor, defenseless, women. Him stepping in to defend the woman on the ground was really just his way of using physical violence to remove her agency, denying her status as a person and effectively rendering her nothing more than an object. His attack on the other women was his way of asserting his male privilege and communicating that the woman on the ground, as an object, is his to protect, rather than their's to deface. Due to the binary nature of the patriarchal, cisgender-dominated system that has socially conditioned this man, he is unable to view the woman on the ground as an individual, but can only see her through the lens of objectification; to wit, his perception must be that she either belongs to the five women who are defacing her, or she belongs to him. Because of this, the destructively sexist culture that we live in virtually requires that men such as this one utilize violence to assert ownership over objectified women. Something something, the male gaze. Something something, feminism.
Ahtman wrote:
trexmeyer wrote: Your post reminded me of this brutality. Probably NSFW due to violence, but there is no gore, blood, or nudity.
What I love about this is that no one stops to help until the guy comes in and stops the five on one, then a few get involved to have him stop. I also like that the guy the stopped the 5 on 1 went full Zap Rowsdower on them, and didn't treat them like they were children.
A bit more serious now: I actually found that part extremely disturbing. Everyone else was content to sit by and let it happen until that guy actually did something, and then they all stood up to stop him. Maybe if someone had done something a bit sooner, he wouldn't have had to have gotten involved at all.
Or Maggie Thatcher, or Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. She seems to like threatening war with the UK every time her popularity starts to wain. I'm sure I could find more, but anyone who thinks a world with female leaders would be less violent is an idiot. It would make FA difference.
No, Dogma. Women are much more peaceful than men. They never fight with each other ever. Your post reminded me of this brutality. Probably NSFW due to violence, but there is no gore, blood, or nudity.
That's the world we live in now courtesy of white knights and deranged feminists. Not all feminists are deranged, but far too many exist. It's almost funny that people wonder why the MRM exists or believe that it is entirely pointless.
Does the wage gap exist? To some extent, yes. Is it as great as claimed? Not remotely close.
Do divorce laws treat men and women equally? No.
I stand by my opinion that laws concerning pregnancy and child support are unjust and excessively punitive against males. That's not even getting into the issue that men have zero say in the abortion of their child. At least in America it's not as extreme as some countries. In France you can not legally have DNA testing done as a male to confirm the child is even yours.
Physical, emotional, and mental abuse by women against men is completely ignored. The man is expected to take it because he is bigger and stronger. By that logic a larger man should also accept being abused by a smaller male simply on the basis he won't be hurt as badly. God forbid defend yourself. Then you'll be the one at fault.
There will always be gender conflict, but the sheer amount of hatred between the sexes at this point is reaching levels of absurdity. Many young men don't want to get married because should the marriage fail, they're the ones being punished by the legal system. I'm of the opinion that most people actually do want a spouse whether or not they'll actually admit it and this has led to both genders being embittered.
Men feel like they can't trust women and that marriage is excessively risky. Due to having a sex drive they still sleep around and enter into relationships with no desire to commit.
Women are angry that a sizable portion of men consider their new found sexual freedom to be nothing more than whoring it up and proceed to complain about being unable to find a "nice guy" or at least one that is willing to commit to something more than a fling. Due to the fact people are typically myopic and love to generalize (look at what I'm doing right now) both genders have proceeded to generalize their opposites instead of treating everyone on a case to case basis.
We've successfully managed to feth everything the hell up. Damn, writing this out has once again made me glad I am single and I don't have a voracious sexual appetite that would get me into trouble. It's just not worth it anymore. Not with all this hatred. I wonder how many others feel like me and have just given up on it.
Your talking about a veeeeerrrryyyy small portion of the population there though. Most people are happily carrying on as they always have done, getting married, sometimes screwing it up, and most divorces are amicable, and most have little to share out. You only hear about the small number of bitter ones.
The only thing that comes close is the girl that spent an entire semester trying to defend her proposal for a global minimum wage. I wish I still had copies of her papers, they were comedy gold.
In fairness a global minimum wage would definitely be a good idea, a good thing, and is technically achievable, but.....
However a global gynocracy that castrates most men, places the remainder into special camps and selectively aborts future generations of males so women can run the planet is not really similar at all.
Cosmic joke or not this sort of gak should not be laughed at but taken with the same serious condemnation as holocaust denial. What she proposes is essentially a male holocaust and feminists have yet to tell her to shut up, or call her comments offensive. This woman deserves serious sanction, not from any danger of her policies catching on, but because she is indistinguishable from any other hate agenda extremist and might be unstable enough to try to rectify the 'problem' one male at a time. Sure she has free speech rights, but she should be monitored, and ordered to visit a psychiatrist for a safety assessment.
Those nations with serving front line female soldiers often regretted the decision as they became uncontrollable fast. Israel experienced this problem.
The same is true with terrorist cells. There is a saying in counter-terrorist circles and is true internationally: 'Shoot the women first'. An armed woman is far more likely to commit an atrocity than a male, they are rarer but that is only due to recruitment profiling and societal norms. Female conscription can work, and women in general can be turned into soldiers or terrorists en masse, its just a very bad idea for many reasons. The principle one being that a society can afford to lose males in war and can recover the losses in one generation, but it cant afford a significant drop in the female population of recruitable age, female conscription is a sign of a dying society.
She wants to abort male babies until there's only a small number of men in the world that she'll concentrate together in camps for manual labor and occasional breeding. They then select people for breeding on the basis of measured generic traits. Don't wish to Godwin the thread but the term feminazi has rarely been so apt.
Holocaust references already mentioned Howard, so no fears you didnt Godwin the thread.
Some observations.
1. Anyone notice that we have been given no actual name for this woman.
2. "The Femitheist" has a three year old child. Due to her bat-gak crazy ideology should social services get involved, and what is the gender of the child, I think thats relevant in this case.
3. If it requires a 90% reduction in the male population to achieve "true equality", is "The Femitheist" silently proposing that one man is worth nine women. How is that feminism?
Or is it one man is worth nineteen women, depending on how she is wording the 90% reduction.
Either way that is some inferiority complex leaking out from between the lines, and methinks it explains a lot of the agenda.
4. While normally I avoid judging a woman on her looks while she is trying to make a point because its grossly disrespectful; but I have to go along with Hordini in this case, and say its ok to 'check her out'. Mainly because in this case there is little to nothing to respect, however in having no human respect I wasn't even able to look at her as a sex object; and I even consciously took a second look and tried once I realised this. In a way she has achieved one of the goals of feminism and totally desexualised herself without having to change her appearance, to me at least, and I prefer blondes as a rule.
Here's my bet: someone was crazy enough to stick his stick into lots of crazy, got her pregnant, then realized she was GODDARN CRAZY, dumped her and then she got angry and frustrated and thought of this crazy stuff.
Also the human gender divide of 50:50 has evolved as the optimum between productivity and genetic variation. Harem structures in the wild, such as lion packs controlled by a dominant male, can be counterproductive for the species as a whole due to shortened genetic diversity.
She's probably one of these 'all penetration is rape' feminists as she thinks men should only be there for manual labor and sex when unfortunately requiring fertilisation. People like that can't relate to a loving mutual relationship. That they think every man is a rapist and every relationship is abusive speaks a lot to their state of mind.
Sigvatr wrote: Here's my bet: someone was crazy enough to stick his stick into lots of crazy, got her pregnant, then realized she was GODDARN CRAZY, dumped her and then she got angry and frustrated and thought of this crazy stuff.
Quite possibly, on checking the links in the article she started spouting this openly just over two years ago with her International Castration Day rant.
As a (very likely) single mother with a bawling infant keeping her up at all hours, I can see where the root of this frustation stems.
Sigvatr wrote: Here's my bet: someone was crazy enough to stick his stick into lots of crazy, got her pregnant, then realized she was GODDARN CRAZY, dumped her and then she got angry and frustrated and thought of this crazy stuff.
Quite possibly, on checking the links in the article she started spouting this openly just over two years ago with her International Castration Day rant.
As a (very likely) single mother with a bawling infant keeping her up at all hours, I can see where the root of this frustation stems.
International
Castration
Day
What the frell is wrong with this woman? This is some seriously messed up gak. I came here to procrastinate when I have an essay due, I think I will just slink off to my essay now.
Sigvatr wrote: Here's my bet: someone was crazy enough to stick his stick into lots of crazy, got her pregnant, then realized she was GODDARN CRAZY, dumped her and then she got angry and frustrated and thought of this crazy stuff.
Quite possibly, on checking the links in the article she started spouting this openly just over two years ago with her International Castration Day rant.
As a (very likely) single mother with a bawling infant keeping her up at all hours, I can see where the root of this frustation stems.
International
Castration
Day
What the frell is wrong with this woman? This is some seriously messed up gak. I came here to procrastinate when I have an essay due, I think I will just slink off to my essay now.
And maybe never return to the internet again.
You should read the International castration Day proposal, the Femitheist claims to no longer propose this, and favours here new approach in her new proposal called The Ratio.
However it gives some fascinating psychological insights.
first it actually gives the Femitheists actual name, or her first name at least: Kirsty.
Second the castration event is bizzare. On castration day men wait their turn before "The Castrator."
- "The Castrator" is specified as a woman with a knife, not a gelding machine, castrated man or male disciple with a knife but specifically a woman. - This is a 'hands on' job for women and appears to be a Freudian revenge trip sex fantasy. - Men stand in a circle waiting "the Castrator", thus they witness prior events directly and the processed is ritualised. - Confirming the Freudian sex fantasy. - Anaesthetic is available afterwards. - Pain is not mentioned or referenced in the proposal consciously, but subliminally this could be a revenge fantasy over childbirth. - Women are also forced to attend, those who disagree are re-educated forcibly - A concealed hatred at women in stable loving relationships, semi-concious envy?
The Femitheist wrote:Males of all ages will be brought to the public squares of their cities nude, to stand together in a circle, as they await castration by a woman known as "The Castrator", who will be a woman chosen from the public much like a juror.
Girls of all ages will attend, lining the streets to cheer and applaud the males as they join the rest of civilized society.
It will be a free vacation for any working woman. And, young girls will be able to leave school to attend this glorious ceremony.
Kirsty has issues, I really do wonder if she still has custody of her child.
Hello. I would like to publicly identify as an Environmentalist. Now that I have identified that way please take all my following comments in that, and only that context.
I think we need to kill all humans. Humans bad for trees. Kill humans. The killed humans will be used as fertilizer for trees. This is because Trees are good for Trees. The last remaining humans (5% of the population) will be allowed to live out the rest of their natural lives, so that they may make sure that the ground up dead humans are evenly distributed for Treekind. They will be sterilized to ensure there are no more humans. We may find that we need to kill the giraffes too, they eat trees, however more research will be needed. Long live trees!
As I am an Environmentalist my comments are important to focus on generally and particularly when discussing Environmentalism, and Environmentalism should generally framed the context of my comments and those who those who share my views. Trees, long live trees.
Chongara wrote: Hello. I would like to publicly identify as an Environmentalist. Now that I have identified that way please take all my following comments in that, and only that context.
I think we need to kill all humans. Humans bad for trees. Kill humans. The killed humans will be used as fertilizer for trees. This is because Trees are good for Trees. The last remaining humans (5% of the population) will be allowed to live out the rest of their natural lives, so that they may make sure that the ground up dead humans are evenly distributed for Treekind. They will be sterilized to ensure there are no more humans. We may find that we need to kill the giraffes too, they eat trees, however more research will be needed. Long live trees!
As I am an Environmentalist my comments are important to focus on generally and particularly when discussing Environmentalism, and Environmentalism should generally framed the context of my comments and those who those who share my views. Trees, long live trees.
I always figured all Environmentalists were nuts, now I know for sure. Thank you for allowing me to come to this realization by speaking for all Environmentalists!
P.S. - If you could post a photo of yourself, this would aid the ability of our fellow Dakkaites to objectify you. Thank you for your understanding.
Sigvatr wrote: Here's my bet: someone was crazy enough to stick his stick into lots of crazy, got her pregnant, then realized she was GODDARN CRAZY, dumped her and then she got angry and frustrated and thought of this crazy stuff.
Quite possibly, on checking the links in the article she started spouting this openly just over two years ago with her International Castration Day rant.
As a (very likely) single mother with a bawling infant keeping her up at all hours, I can see where the root of this frustation stems.
International
Castration
Day
What the frell is wrong with this woman? This is some seriously messed up gak. I came here to procrastinate when I have an essay due, I think I will just slink off to my essay now.
And maybe never return to the internet again.
You should read the International castration Day proposal, the Femitheist claims to no longer propose this, and favours here new approach in her new proposal called The Ratio.
However it gives some fascinating psychological insights.
first it actually gives the Femitheists actual name, or her first name at least: Kirsty.
Second the castration event is bizzare. On castration day men wait their turn before "The Castrator."
- "The Castrator" is specified as a woman with a knife, not a gelding machine, castrated man or male disciple with a knife but specifically a woman. - This is a 'hands on' job for women and appears to be a Freudian revenge trip sex fantasy. - Men stand in a circle waiting "the Castrator", thus they witness prior events directly and the processed is ritualised. - Confirming the Freudian sex fantasy. - Anaesthetic is available afterwards. - Pain is not mentioned or referenced in the proposal consciously, but subliminally this could be a revenge fantasy over childbirth. - Women are also forced to attend, those who disagree are re-educated forcibly - A concealed hatred at women in stable loving relationships, semi-concious envy?
The Femitheist wrote:Males of all ages will be brought to the public squares of their cities nude, to stand together in a circle, as they await castration by a woman known as "The Castrator", who will be a woman chosen from the public much like a juror.
Girls of all ages will attend, lining the streets to cheer and applaud the males as they join the rest of civilized society.
It will be a free vacation for any working woman. And, young girls will be able to leave school to attend this glorious ceremony.
Kirsty has issues, I really do wonder if she still has custody of her child.
I'm no psychologist, so the following is based purely off of my observations of my fellow humans only.
This individual, while not necessarily having views that are relatively more or less drastic than some of my own sometimes, seems to have trouble, differentiating a fantasy something which can be healthy if not overly indulged in, with reality which could be rather, dare I say, disasterous to not only herself but others, especially if it is true she has custody of a child (whether on her own, or with a partner).
Hello. I would like to publicly identify as an Administrator. Now that I have identified that way please take all my following comments in that, and only that context.
I think we need to encourage Environmentalist policy to kill all humans, presumably because, as quoted from our manifesto: . "Humans bad for trees. Kill humans. The killed humans will be used as fertilizer for trees. This is because Trees are good for Trees." etc etc
As Administrators we are overseeing the process and are curiously absent, both from the population scheduled for euthanasia and from the 5% of remaining sterilised humans that are an unfortunate necessity for the transition through the depopulation process; though we don't promise not to hurry along the process once we have direct supremacy and excess industries beyond our immediate personal needs are scaled down. For once the last of the suckers, I mean Environmentalists, are dead we Administrators will own and rule the world, not that we don't do so already, its just that we don't like to share.
In order to give our policy wider credibility the giraffes will also have to go, sorry giraffes.
I am an Administrator and this is my message; and oh, I almost forgot, "long live trees!"
Ouze wrote: The person who was interviewed for this is quite possibly the most successful troll in recent Dakka history.
If only that were true, this is a powerless angst ridden single mother from Southern states America with mental health issues of a yet undefined nature, the only people in danger are herself, her kid and anyone close enough on the day they tips over the edge, which may or may not happen. There are plenty of people just as crazy with power. Robert Mugabe comes to mind.
if male...his mother despises him.
If female...she'll be raised to despise 50% of the human race.
Someone should get her real name and inform child care :/
This was mentioned, and yes she is the mother of a three year old child..
Funnily enough, if the child is boy you might be able to break through some red mist by asking her if she would want to see her son castrated. Chances are she wont want that, mothers love et al, and it might get through to her. If she does then press the little red panic button and 'ask' if she would like to take a ride in a police car and go talk to some nice doctors so she will feel better.
Ouze wrote: The person who was interviewed for this is quite possibly the most successful troll in recent Dakka history.
If only that were true, this is a powerless angst ridden single mother from Southern states America with mental health issues of a yet undefined nature, the only people in danger are herself, her kid and anyone close enough on the day they tips over the edge, which may or may not happen. There are plenty of people just as crazy with power. Robert Mugabe comes to mind.
The sad thing is that there really are crazy lunatics like this in the world.
Skilled Trolls are indistinguishable to whatever they are parodying.
Ouze wrote: The person who was interviewed for this is quite possibly the most successful troll in recent Dakka history.
If only that were true, this is a powerless angst ridden single mother from Southern states America with mental health issues of a yet undefined nature, the only people in danger are herself, her kid and anyone close enough on the day they tips over the edge, which may or may not happen. There are plenty of people just as crazy with power. Robert Mugabe comes to mind.
The sad thing is that there really are crazy lunatics like this in the world.
Skilled Trolls are indistinguishable to whatever they are parodying.
I get what you mean now. I cant tell if this is all a joke, if it is its a pretty sick joke and she deserves sanction as if it were real.
It would also be a cry wolf story. If she gets her child taken away on a risk assessment and turns around and says 'I was only trolling for lulz can I have my child back' I would have zero sympathies.
If policies like this are ever implemented, it'll bring about human extinction.
Castrating 90% of the male population and limiting the number of breeding males to just 10% of the current population would create one hell of a genetic bottleneck.
Women probably wouldn't like this brave New world very much if they all suffer from genetic diseases because they all descend from a handful of men.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I assume that we'll have to have quotas for which races are killed too, we wouldn't want this entire revolutionary idea to be considered racist
Naturally White people would be the exception...because apparently racism doesn't apply to Caucasians.
Castrating 90% of the male population and limiting the number of breeding males to just 10% of the current population would create one hell of a genetic bottleneck.
Women probably wouldn't like this brave New world very much if they all suffer from genetic diseases because they all descend from a handful of men.
Lets take a scientific point of view, so I am not going waste time in hypothesizing Femitheists society, and need another scenario.
For example in the aftermath of say a fast acting fatal testicular virus that wipes out 90% of the worlds men, but due to its target has no effect on women.
In such cases it is entirely plausible that humanity will survive and the genetic bottleneck need not be an issue due to modern communication and fertilisation technology.
Surviving men would have to contribute to a sperm bank (under either scenario) and this can be accessed globally. Every surviving contributing male will pass along genes to nineteen mothers on average, assuming full fertility is offered as a right. Ideally recipient females not be in the same community and ideally the sperm should be passed internationally.
Even if male all fetuses die in the womb due to the virus for several generations, before the testicular plague finally disappears, sperm banks can supply enough sperm from the quote of men surviving the first outbreak to last several generations, and even when by that time each sperm donor has several hundred daughters over several generations the chance of cross breeding would be very low and can also be screened against.
This policy is even implementable if the plague wipes out all men and only very few, say one million men globally, get to donate to sperm banks before they are infected and pass away. A seed population (sic) of one million men amongst up to four billion women would mean four thousand daughters per generation of the sperm donation used per donor male. This sounds a lot but due to the nature of sperm even a relatively small supply from a healthy adult male could last for generations if care is taken not to waste the resource.
This assumes that we are capable or it is even desirable to provide one child per female survivor, which is likely untrue due to medical costs and access. Also assuming each generation of women is properly registered during fertilization you could have practically unlimited generations (there haven't even been one million generations of humans) and, sperm supply allowing, you could have each descendant have a different donor father for as many generations.
Scientifically a maleless society is possible, it wont even require a concentration camp with remnant males in it, though Femitheist hasn't worked that out yet, perhaps science is not her strong suit.
Outlandish or not this scenario has real scientific merit also, one of the more plausible options for space colonisation is to choose entirely female crews, human and animal, with the male population preserved as frozen bottles of sperm samples. This could mean that you could take twice as many females on the journey and a very broad selection of male genetic samples in a very small space giving a far more diverse genetic base at the destination. Even if this route is not chosen for human crews it would make a lot of sense for all large animals on the colony ship to be bred this way.
Castrating 90% of the male population and limiting the number of breeding males to just 10% of the current population would create one hell of a genetic bottleneck.
Women probably wouldn't like this brave New world very much if they all suffer from genetic diseases because they all descend from a handful of men.
Lets take a scientific point of view, so I am not going waste time in hypothesizing Femitheists society, and need another scenario.
For example in the aftermath of say a fast acting fatal testicular virus that wipes out 90% of the worlds men, but due to its target has no effect on women.
In such cases it is entirely plausible that humanity will survive and the genetic bottleneck need not be an issue due to modern communication and fertilisation technology.
Surviving men would have to contribute to a sperm bank (under either scenario) and this can be accessed globally. [...]
Which would still be a genetic bottle neck as you'd be drawing sperm from a male gene pool 10% of the size of the current male population.
I think Orlanth's point was that if something happened and we only had 10% of the male population left, then we could take steps to significantly reduce the genetic bottlenecking.
Krellnus wrote: I think Orlanth's point was that if something happened and we only had 10% of the male population left, then we could take steps to significantly reduce the genetic bottlenecking.
Correct. Only that we will not significantly reduce, we will eliminate the bottleneck from a health point of view with adequate global dispensation of stores sperm samples. As this would be a survival issue, and not to be omitted one run by women, it would likely get done.
10% of men remaining is not a bottleneck really, it will be noticable as a pinch in the genepool but genetic diversity would still be apparent there ought to be no inbreeding issues if administered properly.
LordofHats wrote: A genetic bottleneck isn't really the end of the human species.
No it isnt, and the reason for this is because it has already happened. The Toba supervolcano caused a real bottleneck, reducing the human race down to IIRC 500 breeding pairs about 75k years ago. We are still here, and later diversified into the human race we see today. Femitheist's calamity, or the testicular plague scenario isn't remotely as devastating and we have better technology than sharp rocks nowadays..
Further research into designer babies will be necessary: [...] development of dual-female progeny (babies created from two mothers),
In theory if that was achieved you might as well "get rid of" all men.
I finally know where the "feminazi" term comes from, i tought it was stupid but it seems to apply here, the author wants to wipe out not just a religion or a race but a gender (Well not "wipe out" as such, but you know what i mean.) and no amount of words changes that.
On a less serious note, i would not mind a reversal of roles or a situation where there is a lot more women than men, dating would no longer be a problem, and double standards would now benefit men.
Tis also kinda reminds me of a movie made about 40 years ago in my country, "sexmission", it was somewhat funny but very stupid, it had two protagonists frozen cryogenicaly and when they woke up they found themselves in a society dominated by women who got rid of all men as there was no longer a need for them.
In fairness a global minimum wage would definitely be a good idea, a good thing, and is technically achievable, but.....
In what world is a global minimum wage technically achievable? Setting aside the enforcement problem, how do you set a global minimum wage such that it is significant without overburdening any given economy?
Global minimum wage is impossible for a lot of reasons, most of them being political reasons.
Minimum wage in general is a bad idea. It's a terrible idea to enforce your political views on companies. You don't tickle the bear. Introducing minimum wages sounds awesome to people who aren't familiar with how companies work...and who really is in charge. In Germany, introducing minimum wage has been introduced recently. Sounds good at first, to people who like it, yet what happened? The companies simply fired people to make up for the loss. If you take something from us, we will take it back, tis guaranteed.
Anyway, that's rather OT Feel free to open a new thread if it's interesting enough!
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.
This is one of the most naive things I've ever read.
10% men, hah we'd still rule, because now we'd all be Spartacus raging killing machines.
Besides what are they going to do when a mouse comes around?
The only thing that comes close is the girl that spent an entire semester trying to defend her proposal for a global minimum wage. I wish I still had copies of her papers, they were comedy gold.
In fairness a global minimum wage would definitely be a good idea, a good thing, and is technically achievable, but.....
However a global gynocracy that castrates most men, places the remainder into special camps and selectively aborts future generations of males so women can run the planet is not really similar at all.
Cosmic joke or not this sort of gak should not be laughed at but taken with the same serious condemnation as holocaust denial. What she proposes is essentially a male holocaust and feminists have yet to tell her to shut up, or call her comments offensive. This woman deserves serious sanction, not from any danger of her policies catching on, but because she is indistinguishable from any other hate agenda extremist and might be unstable enough to try to rectify the 'problem' one male at a time. Sure she has free speech rights, but she should be monitored, and ordered to visit a psychiatrist for a safety assessment.
I don't think this goes far enough. Let's say this individual is right, and that a gynecocracy is the answer and will solve all conflicts. And we still have 10% of men who are fertile and contribute to a global sperm bank that any woman can easily access and choose to have children, designer babies, and everyone is selfless enough to communally raise children and choose to have a male when necessary.
In the short term there will be a population slowdown or drop, but we'll still eventually have all the ills of a world rapidly filling up. Oil and natural gas will still run out, arable land will still be used up and pollution and global warming will continue, if not increase, as the gynecocracy will undoubtedly make things more fair.
It's much better that both genders take the hit. We should mass sterilise 90% of the entire population, male and female, and only then can we redress the balance.
Yeah, the fact that women are relatively less aggressive than men has as much to do with gender norms as it does genetics. Take those norms away and I guarantee there would be no appreciable decline in global violence.
Really? The last study I read about male aggression vs. female aggression--tied the conversion of estrogen to testosterone as a strong causation in territorial aggression (which is handled much differently in a male brain when compared to a female). I agree that gender norms certainly play a large part as well but I would not go so far to say the two effects are equal.
Yeah, the fact that women are relatively less aggressive than men has as much to do with gender norms as it does genetics. Take those norms away and I guarantee there would be no appreciable decline in global violence.
Really? The last study I read about male aggression vs. female aggression--tied the conversion of estrogen to testosterone as a strong causation in territorial aggression (which is handled much differently in a male brain when compared to a female). I agree that gender norms certainly play a large part as well but I would not go so far to say the two effects are equal.
This. Men are more aggressive than women by nature. What is made out of this is different in regards to socialization etc.
Now that premise presents an interesting quandary- would a naturally peaceful society be more stable, as they hope- or would it be more vulnerable to the aberrants, the hyper aggressive females who for whatever reason become bent on world domination?
We know that in a patriarchal society we have people willing to bust skulls, burn buildings, and riot over the results of soccer games. This requires tyrants to oppose the inevitable rebellions- America particularly is just waiting for its government to step out of line.
Would the matriarchal America truly be safer- or would it at some point descend into North Korean style oppression under a power mad grand Empress?
We know that in a patriarchal society we have people willing to bust skulls, burn buildings, and riot over the results of soccer games. This requires tyrants to oppose the inevitable rebellions- America particularly is just waiting for its government to step out of line.
I'm assuming that you're talking about pre-modern America as post-modern America isn't a patriarchy anymore. No civilized Western country is.
The definition of a Patriarchy as used by most feminists (in my experience), is a society where the majority of its leaders are Men and the society is shaped in such a way that Men enjoy a number of privileges that are disproportionate to the privileges owned by women.
BlaxicanX wrote: The definition of a Patriarchy as used by most feminists (in my experience), is a society where the majority of its leaders are Men and the society is shaped in such a way that Men enjoy a number of privileges that are disproportionate to the privileges owned by women.
Really? The last study I read about male aggression vs. female aggression--tied the conversion of estrogen to testosterone as a strong causation in territorial aggression (which is handled much differently in a male brain when compared to a female). I agree that gender norms certainly play a large part as well but I would not go so far to say the two effects are equal.
A few years ago I read a study which tied testosterone production to epigenetic factors, particularly psychological responses related to possession and authority. As such I expect that, in world where women are the primary arbiters of conflict, we would see a general increase in testosterone production across the whole of the female population and no appreciable decline in violence.
AgeOfEgos wrote: Really? The last study I read about male aggression vs. female aggression--tied the conversion of estrogen to testosterone as a strong causation in territorial aggression (which is handled much differently in a male brain when compared to a female). I agree that gender norms certainly play a large part as well but I would not go so far to say the two effects are equal.
But does that only cover impulsive violence like punching someone for saying something offensive, or does it include calculated violence like deciding to invade another country and take their land and resources? I can believe that men (and, by extension, male-dominated societies) would be more aggressive in terms of violence motivated by emotion, but that doesn't mean that women aren't capable of recognizing a situation where violence is a useful tool. So this hypothetical female-dominated society might have fewer wars over "honor" or whatever, but it would probably have a similar level of wars over conflicting national interests.
You mean "literal dictionary definitions". The concept of a patriarchy involving distribution of power and privilege is a useful and relevant one, even if you want to nitpick the exact word used to refer to it. Complaining that the "feminist" concept of a patriarchy doesn't perfectly match the strictest interpretation of the dictionary definition is a useless argument that completely avoids the substance of any of the issues.
But does that only cover impulsive violence like punching someone for saying something offensive, or does it include calculated violence like deciding to invade another country and take their land and resources? I can believe that men (and, by extension, male-dominated societies) would be more aggressive in terms of violence motivated by emotion, but that doesn't mean that women aren't capable of recognizing a situation where violence is a useful tool. So this hypothetical female-dominated society might have fewer wars over "honor" or whatever, but it would probably have a similar level of wars over conflicting national interests.
This is certainly possible. Women can be just as ruthless as men. But
Men: Violence from emotion + calculated violence
Women: Less violence from emotion + equivalent calculated violence
Still makes less wars for the latter category. I doubt women would cause much more 'calculated' violence than men already do, so the net result should be a decrease.
I am still firmly against killing off the majority of the male population. Men make good video games, so it would be a more boring world without them. So it's okay, you can live.
As with food production, adding increased levels of artificial aid into the reproductive cycle makes it significantly more prone to interruption, error and control by outside agencies.
Whilst I agree that there are quite a numbet of problems with society in general and with male/female relationships within society, the proposed solution in the OP is sadly lacking and as discussed earlier seems to be spurred more as some kind of revenge fantasy than anything else.
And having worked in very female heavy jobs before, I have to say that females are no less violent than males; psychological violence is violence none the less and often significantly more damaging and vicious than physical violence, often conducted over a much greater period of time as well...
You mean "literal dictionary definitions". The concept of a patriarchy involving distribution of power and privilege is a useful and relevant one, even if you want to nitpick the exact word used to refer to it. Complaining that the "feminist" concept of a patriarchy doesn't perfectly match the strictest interpretation of the dictionary definition is a useless argument that completely avoids the substance of any of the issues.
No, I meant "unbiased definitions". You might prefer biased definitions, which is fine, but highly unsuitable for any discussion that involves more than one party, given that your very definitions are already influenced by your own opinion and are therefore inferior to neutral ones.
Biased definitions are flawed because they aren't definitions on their own, but are already influenced by a certain party's opinion. Neutral, or unbiased, definitions aren't influenced by any party and can be used by anyone to talk about an issue and then, on top of that, add in your own ideas about an issue.
No, I meant "unbiased definitions". You might prefer biased definitions, which is fine, but highly unsuitable for any discussion that involves more than one party, given that your very definitions are already influenced by your own opinion and are therefore inferior to neutral ones.
Biased definitions are flawed because they aren't definitions on their own, but are already influenced by a certain party's opinion. Neutral, or unbiased, definitions aren't influenced by any party and can be used by anyone to talk about an issue and then, on top of that, add in your own ideas about an issue.
The 'bias' of a definition is meaningless in discussion. All that matters is that the definition being used is understood by both parties so they're not talking past each other. Saying "your definition is wrong" is a pointless statement that avoids at all dealing with the discussion at hand by dismissing its basis. You don't want to discuss the topic, you want to ignore it completely or twist the discussion to serve a specific purpose by denying any definition unsuitable to you.
i.e. your demand for an unbiased definition is itself biased
One wonders if you've ever actually engaged in formal academic debate
The 'bias' of a definition is meaningless in discussion.
Incorrect. If several parties use the very same term with a different definition each, you're bound for trouble.
All that matters is that the definition being used is understood by both parties so they're not talking past each other.
What about a discussion about a definition?
Saying "your definition is wrong" is a pointless statement that avoids at all dealing with the discussion at hand by dismissing its basis.
Phew, glad I never did that!
i.e. your demand for an unbiased definition is itself biased
I'll let you think about that sentence for a while
One wonders if you've ever actually engaged in formal academic debate
More often than I could have ever wished for. You jumping to conclusions made on false assumptions, however, does startle me and raises an urge to wonder about the same thing in regards to yourself
Furthermore, she then goes on to establish that she basically holds none of the usual tenets or beliefs of 'mainstream' Feminism. Hell, from the looks of it she seems to have more in common with the typical MRA loon than most people who define themselves as feminists.
Then the obvious course would be to attack the substance of the definition rather than dismiss it out of hand.
More often than I could have ever wished for.
It's a wonder then that this needs explaining and that you still don't get it.
I'll let you think about that sentence for a while
Let me know when you catch up.
I had to look at this quote twice myself just to comprehend how that even works, and it doesn't.
I accused him of dismissing the definition for no reason other than it doesn't suit his personal opinions. His call for 'unbiased definitions' is just a veiled dismissal of any idea that conflicts with his own. I.E. A bias masquerading as objectivity.
It's a wonder then that this needs explaining and that you still don't get it.
I'm used to having those with people also interested in an actual discussion and not outright dismissing others to shove their personal opinion onto them
It's biased to demand that people use the English language correctly instead of twisting and inventing the definitions of words to suit their agenda?
I accused him of dismissing the definition for no reason other than it doesn't suit his personal opinions. His call for 'unbiased definitions' is just a veiled dismissal of any idea that conflicts with his own. I.E. A bias masquerading as objectivity.
Words have more than one definition, and a dictionary is not the end of meaning especially not for complex words like patriarchy. Further, the definition used by feminists was not invented by feminists it was invented by Anthropologists to help them define the role of the sexes in a society. The only contribution feminists had to that was to take it and apply it to sociology.
Go look up the myriad of different ways the word 'racism' is used in various fields sometime. All words and definitions in the English language were invented by someone, so attacking a definition as 'invented' is completely moot. Language wasn't written on a stone tablet by God and handed to Geoffry Chaucer and Noah Webster so they could teach the rest of us the proper way to use it.
LordofHats wrote: The only contribution feminists had to that was to take it and apply it to sociology.
...because taking a term and slapping it on a quite different area is a proper way to use terms!
It happens all the time and in this case isn't shocking, since Anthropology is a sub-field of Sociology and deals with a lot of same content. All Anthropology does is throw in some Biology for flavor, but that doesn't really have much effect on how Anthropology structures the sex relationships of societies.
...and we're supposed to take your word for it being valid in this case?
Anyway, long story short:
I prefer using unbiased, standard English terms in order to establish a well-rounded discussion and use terms that do not benefit either side.
You prefer using biased terms that fit your own agenda. Which is fine, for yourself, but don't expect others, including me, to meet you at eye level if going in such discussions when even your use of basic terms already shows a strong bias.
A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it:
Oh wait, you can't. The above is just a less wordy version of this;
a society where the majority of its leaders are Men and the society is shaped in such a way that Men enjoy a number of privileges that are disproportionate to the privileges owned by women.
Once again, I find most people don't know how to use a dictionary, which is sad because they're usually the people who really need to start understanding what words mean and how meaning works
...and we're supposed to take your word for it being valid in this case?
So you don't know what Anthropology is either then?
Sigvatr wrote: ...and you go ad hominem, the circle is complete!
You keep throwing out words and showing you don't know what they mean or how words acquire and demonstrate meaning. That's not ad hominem its demonstrated from your posts You've also used ad hominem incorrectly, as attacking your poor use of a dictionary isn't the same thing as attacking you the person.
You're the one who goes into threads and accuses people of using biased definitions and then misses that those definitions are in dictionaries (most dictionaries being written by Descriptive Linguists, this isn't really shocking).
Shall we take a step back? My apologies Sigvatr, I was using patriarchy as a government where the majority of power was held by males and females were largely excluded from it.
I prefer using unbiased, standard English terms in order to establish a well-rounded discussion and use terms that do not benefit either side.
Seriously, the definition in question isn't exactly new, it's existed for decades at this point.
You've done absolutely nothing to back up why you're dismissing the definition other than declare it "biased"*, and expect us to take your word for it.
*How can a definition be "biased" anyway? The decisions leading you to use a certain definition can certainly be biased, but the definition itself is just an explanation of what you mean with a certain word, phrase, or expression, used in order to make sure that you're consistent with yourself.
Wow, I thought my ideas of philosophy were crazy. This chick takes the cake on that. Lets annihilate the male species, ignoring the fact that woman are human beings as well and have just the equal amount of reason to start wars and genocide. My god people need to read their philosophy books better.
You keep throwing out words and showing you don't know what they mean or how words acquire and demonstrate meaning. That's not ad hominem its demonstrated from your posts You've also used ad hominem incorrectly, as attacking your poor use of a dictionary isn't the same thing as attacking you the person..
So basically, you're angry about someone whose native language isn't English still seems to be significantally more proficient at understanding and correctly applying its terms?
I guess I just realized why you're so angry then - apologies for hurting your feelings, not intended
Gitzbitah wrote: Shall we take a step back? My apologies Sigvatr, I was using patriarchy as a government where the majority of power was held by males and females were largely excluded from it.
No offense taken by you, I saw where you were coming from. Technically, it isn't a patriarchy but you used the term to describe it as being as a patriarchy - which is fine
A definition becomes "biased" when it's used to fit into any party's agenda. Patriarchy, by the actual definition, is the enforced rule of men where all power comes from men and women are explicitely excluded. That's a patriarchy. Like a king ruling over his kingdom or women denied voting rights. This, fortunately, is a thing of the past in modern states, yet it still is a problem in many countries all over the world, e.g. most middle-east countries.
That's the definition of a patriarchy.
Now, the term isn't used in the normal way from time to time. People, as with many other words, use them in a a slightly different meaning to make it fit more to their own ideas of it. This can be fine, as stated above, if you want to describe anything etc. If using it to make a point, however, it's misleading.
Now, the term isn't used in the normal way from time to time. People, as with many other words, use them in a a slightly different meaning to make it fit more to their own ideas of it. This can be fine, as stated above, if you want to describe anything etc. If using it to make a point, however, it's misleading.
Which no one was doing in this thread. You just objected to the use of the word patriarchy because... something. The definition of patriarchy being used has been in use for longer than I've been alive, it's certainly used widely enough to have entered common parlance. We know you don't like that, but that's how it is.
Okay so I bet this lady would be apart of the wicker man world. (Where a man is sacrificed every year for crops, and men only work, mate, sleep, and thats it and where the women rule in a tribal like community.)
I still think from what is being read, people think it is sexist, but isn't sexist to put down either gender?
Women and Men have capabilities to kill and murder.
It is not just unique to men. There are so women who become serial killers, some who lead terrorist organizations. Some who pulled the strings of kings to cause wars. It happens and no human is immune to the flaws inherit in humans.
Sigvatr wrote: So basically, you're angry about someone whose native language isn't English still seems to be significantally more proficient at understanding and correctly applying its terms?
Angry? Dude, I find you hilarious Half the reason I reply is to see what nonsense you'll trot out next. Like this;
A definition becomes "biased" when it's used to fit into any party's agenda. Patriarchy, by the actual definition, is the enforced rule of men where all power comes from men and women are explicitely excluded. That's a patriarchy. Like a king ruling over his kingdom or women denied voting rights.
You linked a web page defining patriarchy in three ways. One of those ways is one defining how Feminists typically use the word. And you're still here trying to claim that there's only one actual definition. If you'd never bothered to crack open a dictionary, or found one that only listed one definition for the word it might be understandable, but you linked a page with three!
The level of intellectual dishonesty I've seen you level over the past few threads where I've seen you in, and with such utter transparency, is keeping me chipper
And then this;
If using it to make a point, however, it's misleading.
Again; you call for words to have only one technical/accurate/actual/unbiased meaning, despite it being demonstrated by you yourself that they have more than one, and then accuse anyone of using those other definitions of 'misleading' people.
I got nothing to do this early in the morning, and you're filling it with laughter! I thank you sir
Sigvatr wrote: So basically, you're angry about someone whose native language isn't English still seems to be significantally more proficient at understanding and correctly applying its terms?
Angry? Dude, I find you hilarious Half the reason I reply is to see what nonsense you'll trot out next.
Make that two, I have been working this morning and now I'm cooking at the same time. Ze forum game, a game for ze whole family.
Still, it'd be more entertaining if you'd read my posts, in detail, as you keep jumping to false conclusions based on false assumptions, as has been pointed out already a few posts above. Or even pages right now.
So by that statement of yours, you state that women are mostly excluded from our society nowadays?
My point isn't that the definition itself is wrong, it's the use. The definition is exactly as I pointed out above. The problem is that a lot of people misuse the term by applying it to a situation that simply isn't fit.
The level of intellectual dishonesty I've seen you level over the past few threads where I've seen you in, and with such utter transparency, is keeping me chipper
That actually is a quite fitting definition for your posts, I'll accept that!
Sigvatr wrote: ...as you keep jumping to false conclusions based on false assumptions...
So by that statement of yours, you state that women are mostly excluded from our society nowadays?
I'd make a joke about Patch Adams here, but it's probably too soon
I never claimed that women are mostly excluded from society (EDIT: most feminists don't claim this either btw), but I do love how you accuse me of false conclusions based on false assumptions while your posts pretty much run off them. I've commented only on things you've said, namely your butchering of meaning to serve your agenda of dismissing the concept of patriarchy as used by feminists, a definition listed in a dictionary you linked (something you have yet to even address I might add).
But please be my guest. Keep on trying. Never change Sig, never change
In fairness a global minimum wage would definitely be a good idea, a good thing, and is technically achievable, but.....
In what world is a global minimum wage technically achievable? Setting aside the enforcement problem, how do you set a global minimum wage such that it is significant without overburdening any given economy?
I think you missed the but...
You could have a very healthy minimum wage planetwide out of the redistributed incomes of the top 0.1% of earners, and probably just from a portion of that.
The problem lies in getting oil barons hedge fund managers and financier cartels to share their fortune with ordinary Africans.
I don't know who first wrote this quote but its telling.
"If all the rich people pooled their money, there wouldn't be enough to go around."
A global socialist revolution is possible, and honest global socialist revolution that parses out monies evenly is not, but only because there are humans in the process, not because there isn't enough global resources to properly support the current global population at a 'reasonable' level for quality of life.
In any event the reason for the comments was that there is a girth of difference between pie in the sky idealism and pie in the sky brutal totalitarianism. Your student ,bless her, was naive enough to believe in the former, the Femitheist is twisted enough to believe in the latter. I am OK with fantasy, and so are you if you are part of a fantasy gaming community, but some fantasy dreams can become proposals and at that point the proposals are judgeable, not on their practical merit, ias they are social fantasies, but on their moral merit. You student sounds like a nice well meaning person who is too innocent for the world, at least on one level. The Femitheist is a nutjob with a vicious hate agenda and needs monitoring by psychiatric professionals in case she does something crazy.
You student sounds like a nice well meaning person who is too innocent for the world, at least on one level. The Femitheist is a nutjob with a vicious hate agenda and needs monitoring by psychiatric professionals in case she does something crazy.
I merely see naivete in both cases, bearing in mind that a global minimum wage must be enforced.
You student sounds like a nice well meaning person who is too innocent for the world, at least on one level. The Femitheist is a nutjob with a vicious hate agenda and needs monitoring by psychiatric professionals in case she does something crazy.
I merely see naivete in both cases, bearing in mind that a global minimum wage must be enforced.
Not disagreeing with that, and you are labouring under the misunderstanding that i was, which is strange because if you quoted properly you will see the true issue.
Both are naive, but one is positive naive wishful thinking and can be ignored, the other is heavily negative and could be an indicator of deeper problems.
Both are naive, but one is positive naive wishful thinking and can be ignored, the other is heavily negative and could be an indicator of deeper problems.
And yet they are still comparable according to the standard of naivete, the standard I used.
In fairness a global minimum wage would definitely be a good idea, a good thing, and is technically achievable, but.....
In what world is a global minimum wage technically achievable? Setting aside the enforcement problem, how do you set a global minimum wage such that it is significant without overburdening any given economy?
I think you missed the but...
You could have a very healthy minimum wage planetwide out of the redistributed incomes of the top 0.1% of earners, and probably just from a portion of that.
The problem lies in getting oil barons hedge fund managers and financier cartels to share their fortune with ordinary Africans.
I don't know who first wrote this quote but its telling.
"If all the rich people pooled their money, there wouldn't be enough to go around."
A global socialist revolution is possible, and honest global socialist revolution that parses out monies evenly is not, but only because there are humans in the process, not because there isn't enough global resources to properly support the current global population at a 'reasonable' level for quality of life.
In any event the reason for the comments was that there is a girth of difference between pie in the sky idealism and pie in the sky brutal totalitarianism. Your student ,bless her, was naive enough to believe in the former, the Femitheist is twisted enough to believe in the latter. I am OK with fantasy, and so are you if you are part of a fantasy gaming community, but some fantasy dreams can become proposals and at that point the proposals are judgeable, not on their practical merit, ias they are social fantasies, but on their moral merit. You student sounds like a nice well meaning person who is too innocent for the world, at least on one level. The Femitheist is a nutjob with a vicious hate agenda and needs monitoring by psychiatric professionals in case she does something crazy.
We tried this once, in Russia. Didn't end too well.
Also, I wonder what North Koreans have to say about Socialism...
it is technically achievable. If the revolutionaries put the hedge fund managers in a camp and force issues.
Its a matter of practicality.
Are we really going to get into a techne v. episteme debate?
Yes
You failed to understand that there is a sliding scale between impossible, technically possible and practically possible. You have split and merged technically possible into the two ends by denying implausible technical possibilities. This is actually naive of you and ignores vital lessons of history.
For example when something is technically possible, because it technically can be done, but is perceived so impractical or unlikely it is lumped in as impossible rather than possible, that is when people who find a way to make the technically possible practical reap a dividend because others assume it cannot be done. People like Mohamadas Ghandi and Heinz Guderian.
It is not "technically achievable" as the facts which pertain to human behavior circumvent the possibility.
Wrong.
Taking your logic the US has no national taxation, no national health care and no national rule of law , and neither does any other country; because you will always find someone who doesn't pay their taxes, doesn't get health care or breaks the law and gets away with it.
The monkey in the system doesn't matter.
100% success is not the pass mark for civic achievement, legislation is.
Once you understand this then youn can ask yoursalf can a body such as the UN pass a global law calling for a global minimum wage? Yes, it can if the General assembly agrees and the Security council doesnt veto. You could also invisage scenarios where that may play out.
The monkey in the system doesn't matter.
A global government is possible, and some believe one is indeed likely, or may already be here in terms of the UN.
A global government may propose a global minimum wage.
In fact one could have that now, we have a 'global abolition of slavery' via the UN declaration 1948, there are still slaves though, just fewer has before and more concealed. We could have a decreed in the UN 'global minimum wage' and wag fingers at regimes that don't keep to it, the system wont be perfect, but it could be there it might even raise some from poverty..
Its naive to say the system would fully work, which is what your student appears to imply by your commentary; its not so naive to say the system is proposable, or even 'achievable' on one level no matter how flawed.
You could also look at it this way, it would be immensely popular, a demagogue could see the virtue in backing the billions of poor over the millions of rich. Could a global minimum wage be proposed for selfish and corrupt ends, most definitely. It would be a shrewd route to more power under a global government or intra-governmental system.
Not disagreeing with that, and you are labouring under the misunderstanding that i was...
You did say that they weren't comparable.
They were not morally comperable, under the context of your orginal comments, which were to mock the two 'policies' side by side, which is a moral comparison. The Femitheist is an object or ridicule, I wouldnt laugh at people who propose a global million wage, they may be doing so for sound humanitarian reasons.
Both are naive, but one is positive naive wishful thinking and can be ignored, the other is heavily negative and could be an indicator of deeper problems.
And yet they are still comparable according to the standard of naivete, the standard I used.
You need to see the difference between harmless naiveity (sp) and dangerously naive. You were mocking your student as 'comedy gold' which is ok at one level, but lumping her in the same category as the Femitheist, which is not.
From your tone and the fact that you considered her papers 'comedy' implies she didn't want to propose a global minimum wage by mass ritual castration or the equivalent.
if male...his mother despises him.
If female...she'll be raised to despise 50% of the human race.
Still better than being in the Westboro Baptist Church. At least the kid will only be in contact of one “ideologically impaired” parent, not a whole cult-like family.
Q: “Are you a ‘Feminist’?”
A: No. I am not a “Radical Feminist,” or even a “Feminist” of any kind, despite what many "MRAs" claim. Femitheism is unique to my followers and I, and I do not associate it with Feminism because the desired outcomes are drastically and absolutely different in almost every way. And, although I do believe in some obviously tangible “Patriarchal Constructs,” I do not support or even care much about “Patriarchy Theory,” and I do not care much about defending concepts like “Rape Culture,” and so forth. I have my own phrases and concepts. I do argue on behalf of those Feminist concepts sometimes, but mostly out of boredom; I have no desire to prove their legitimacy beyond that. And, just for future reference, anyone who claims that I am a Feminist, or that my writings are Feminist-related, or that my group is a Feminist group, or that my followers are Feminists, is wrong. I am not a Feminist, and neither are they. We are Fethez who follow Femitheism. We, and our ideological set, are entirely dissociated from Feminism/Feminists. This fact has been made clear across all of my platforms for nearly two years now, and most of the MRAs still haven’t quite figured it out yet (once again, likely due to shortcomings in reading comprehension). If anyone claims or states that I am a Feminist, or that we are Feminists/Feminism-related, they are either disingenuous, or simply a liar. Period.
Emphasis mine.
So basically, 90% of this thread is invalid now. Who would have thought ?
if male...his mother despises him.
If female...she'll be raised to despise 50% of the human race.
Still better than being in the Westboro Baptist Church. At least the kid will only be in contact of one “ideologically impaired” parent, not a whole cult-like family.
Irony is from interviews of Westboro kids they can grow up well rounded.
Fed complete BS from their parents but aware that there is a differing opinion just outside their door.
They grow up politically aware and start questioning morality.
The it goes one of two ways, either they get brainwashed, or they leave/get kicked out of home.
Those that leave often get interviewed because of who their parents are and in cases I have seen they are bright and morally aware citizens and come across that was in interviews.
I can't credit WBC for any of this, its more the presence of counterprotest and the frequency of coverage. But it is a hothouse environment, and that is effective for raising high achiever children.
Also no matter what we think of the WBC they are high achievers, they are under mental siege from the entire US media and everyone hates them, but are still holding out.
if male...his mother despises him.
If female...she'll be raised to despise 50% of the human race.
Still better than being in the Westboro Baptist Church. At least the kid will only be in contact of one “ideologically impaired” parent, not a whole cult-like family.
Irony is from interviews of Westboro kids they can grow up well rounded.
Fed complete BS from their parents but aware that there is a differing opinion just outside their door.
They grow up politically aware and start questioning morality.
The it goes one of two ways, either they get brainwashed, or they leave/get kicked out of home.
Those that leave often get interviewed because of who their parents are and in cases I have seen they are bright and morally aware citizens and come across that was in interviews.
I can't credit WBC for any of this, its more the presence of counterprotest and the frequency of coverage. But it is a hothouse environment, and that is effective for raising high achiever children.
Also no matter what we think of the WBC they are high achievers, they are under mental siege from the entire US media and everyone hates them, but are still holding out.
A rock would hold out just well, and I wouldn't attribute any kind of high achievement to it for the feat. And it wouldn't hurt people as much from its spot on the ground. Honestly, I'd prefer the rock.
Sigvatr wrote: ...and we're supposed to take your word for it being valid in this case?
Anyway, long story short:
I prefer using unbiased, standard English terms in order to establish a well-rounded discussion and use terms that do not benefit either side.
You prefer using biased terms that fit your own agenda. Which is fine, for yourself, but don't expect others, including me, to meet you at eye level if going in such discussions when even your use of basic terms already shows a strong bias.
Hey I can't build up a good head of fake rage steam here with you people arguing about...definitions.
Queried the wife and daughter on this subject. Both thought it reaked of Nazi. Neither were happy when I said my first thought was "hah, ten to one, pfft we can still take you." Later, after saying that again, they ganged up on me and beat me with well accented draperies until I was rescued by the canines and hidden in a kennel.
if male...his mother despises him. If female...she'll be raised to despise 50% of the human race.
Still better than being in the Westboro Baptist Church. At least the kid will only be in contact of one “ideologically impaired” parent, not a whole cult-like family.
Q: “Are you a ‘Feminist’?” A: No. I am not a “Radical Feminist,” or even a “Feminist” of any kind, despite what many "MRAs" claim. Femitheism is unique to my followers and I, and I do not associate it with Feminism because the desired outcomes are drastically and absolutely different in almost every way. And, although I do believe in some obviously tangible “Patriarchal Constructs,” I do not support or even care much about “Patriarchy Theory,” and I do not care much about defending concepts like “Rape Culture,” and so forth. I have my own phrases and concepts. I do argue on behalf of those Feminist concepts sometimes, but mostly out of boredom; I have no desire to prove their legitimacy beyond that. And, just for future reference, anyone who claims that I am a Feminist, or that my writings are Feminist-related, or that my group is a Feminist group, or that my followers are Feminists, is wrong. I am not a Feminist, and neither are they. We are Fethez who follow Femitheism. We, and our ideological set, are entirely dissociated from Feminism/Feminists. This fact has been made clear across all of my platforms for nearly two years now, and most of the MRAs still haven’t quite figured it out yet (once again, likely due to shortcomings in reading comprehension). If anyone claims or states that I am a Feminist, or that we are Feminists/Feminism-related, they are either disingenuous, or simply a liar. Period.
Emphasis mine. So basically, 90% of this thread is invalid now. Who would have thought ?
Well thats good, means the feminists don't have to deal with her now.
She is now what ever the hell a Femithesit is. I just looked it up and it is really popular with college girls and high school girls O.o
Q: “What does ‘Femitheist’ mean?” A: The title that I use, “Femitheist,” is a loose merger of the words “Female” and “Theist.” The reason that there is an “i” in the word (aside from the addition of it being aesthetically and phonetically pleasing to me), is that I didn’t want the title to be confused with anything “Atheism” related, although I am (conventionally) an Agnostic-Atheist. The full title is “The Femitheist Divine,” and it has since been presented in a variety of ways, such as “Femitheist,” “Femitheist Divine,” “The Divine Femitheist,” “The Femitheist,” “FD,” and “Femi.” The name is a play-on-words, and relates to a piece that I wrote entitled “God as the Woman,” which will be re-posted again later (it is not currently available anywhere). The word is original to me and my online presence. And, yes, I am aware that it is not etymologically correct, but it is an invented sobriquet which has taken on its own meaning, and nothing more.
Q: “Do you hate men?” A: No. I abhor and oppose only offenders and perpetrators, female and male, and desire to protect and elevate all victims and non-offenders, regardless of sex.
Huh. Okay.
Q: “If you don’t hate men, why do you so often focus on the crimes and violence of men?” A: Men commit the overwhelming majority of all violence and crime (70-80%+ statistically/annually, in relation to violent crimes, for instance), and I prefer to observe reality as it is. I do not ignore or apologize for female offenders and perpetrators, but statistically, modernly and historically, men are, and have always been, the overwhelming majority when it comes to committing acts of violence (they are also the majority of victims, as most crimes are male-on-male or male-on-female). The aforementioned issues are not my fault (or how I wish for things to be, which is why I desire a dramatic paradigm alteration/reformation); however, these conditions are simply our actuality in this system, and I prefer to see all things as they truly are
Which is also false from a biased stand point. There are many areas of the world where it is more than equal in terms of crime and violence.
Q: “Do you advocate ‘International Castration Day’?” A: No. I was never serious about ICD. I explained this more thoroughly in a recent post here. It has been rescinded/retracted for over a year (nearing two). I grew weary of discussions of it in any context. People are free to continue mentioning it if they'd like, but I will not be. This answer was condensed because a few individuals felt that the original was too prolix and discursive. Rest assured, none of my true preferences and/or solutions involve castration, harming anyone, or killing anyone (yes, this need be stated). My genuine devices/ideas and/or desired outcomes are far more sophisticated, intricate and benevolent/benign.
Alrighty. Thats genuinely a good argument. Except a few bits and pieces here and there that make me raise my eyebrow pretty bloody high.
Q: “Do you still advocate reducing the male population to roughly 1-10%?” A: Yes. This will be thoroughly explained in my book (mentioned above), and no, it has nothing to do with “hating men.” It is for the betterment of the human species, and the instruments of its arrival include genetic engineering, elements of trans-humanism, and various other things that I will not expound here (due to the information being intended for my future/upcoming projects). None of it has anything to do with hatred of men; it is all conceptualized to improve the overall well-being of humanity (the aims are controlled and enhanced evolution and refinement of the human condition). Once more men witness and understand what I am proposing with this project, it is highly likely that many of them will be far less opposed; they will, perhaps, even be enthusiastic about my mission, as my plans will be of great benefit to them (more so than women, in a way). All of my currently supported methods are benign, and yes, the reduction is absolutely possible, and its sustainment (as I will prove) is completely (scientifically) feasible — it will work.
Why not just decrease the overall population? I know that sounds horrible and indiscriminately killing people is not really on everyones high list, but we are talking theoretical here. Killing for the sakes of wrongs against humanity is as good as murdering a puppy the first day you got it for pooping on the carpet. What about those that we send to jail... Are rehabilitated instead of I don't know... Released without rehabilitation? That would solve 68% of all crimes in the US. As we would not have as many repeating criminals.
Most people who act in criminal behavior way are usually forced into that position I.E. Gang Bangers, Thiefs, etc. Mostly due to their economic status. They are angry that they are in this situation and turn to crime, because it is 'easier' than actually doing the hard work to complete it.
I feel like She is making great agruments but is not looking at the root source, not gender based. Which makes her argument inherently sexist in someway. It may not be her intent but that is what she comes off as.
Q: “Do you believe that testosterone causes aggression or violent behavior?” A: No (or at least not alone). Many studies have shown that higher levels of testosterone do not necessarily lead to more aggressive behaviors. There is still much research that needs to be done in this area before any absolute conclusions can be drawn, but for the time being, my answer is no.
Agreed.
So far I can see her thoughts and values are just a little bit misguided, they are boarding that egalitarian and feminist ideals to some degree. But here entire outlook is completely Utilitarian. (If these phrases confuse you, I will put some links into the words)
From her thinking I can infer that she is treading on a pretty slippery slope on her beliefs to eradicate 10% of the population. But from her words I can see she is not talking the theoretical here, but in actuality this is what she wants us to do.
There are many things that can be done differently than what she suggests. Such as being blinded by her own beliefs. And keeping a bit more of an open mind.
if male...his mother despises him.
If female...she'll be raised to despise 50% of the human race.
Still better than being in the Westboro Baptist Church. At least the kid will only be in contact of one “ideologically impaired” parent, not a whole cult-like family.
Irony is from interviews of Westboro kids they can grow up well rounded.
Fed complete BS from their parents but aware that there is a differing opinion just outside their door.
They grow up politically aware and start questioning morality.
The it goes one of two ways, either they get brainwashed, or they leave/get kicked out of home.
Those that leave often get interviewed because of who their parents are and in cases I have seen they are bright and morally aware citizens and come across that was in interviews.
I can't credit WBC for any of this, its more the presence of counterprotest and the frequency of coverage. But it is a hothouse environment, and that is effective for raising high achiever children.
Also no matter what we think of the WBC they are high achievers, they are under mental siege from the entire US media and everyone hates them, but are still holding out.
A rock would hold out just well, and I wouldn't attribute any kind of high achievement to it for the feat. And it wouldn't hurt people as much from its spot on the ground. Honestly, I'd prefer the rock.
A satisfying sentiment but a poor assessment. A rock has no feelings, or sense of moral compass. These people do, on some level, and have no support and are under constant moral attack for reasons they can only blame themselves for.
They live in a country of 300+ million people and just about every one of them hates them, they are barred from entry to most civilised countries, riduculed in the press, unwanted in their community and their religious doctrines are torn to shreds by people of the same religion, many of whom can expound on theology better than they can.
Unlike a rock the WBC is losing members to mental and moral pressure, but some remain despite the stresses of being a part of WBC. I am trying to figure out what makes them tick, 'they are brainwashed' doesnt cut it. because the surrounding counter-media is all prevailing and they cant close out its influence. Brainwashing normally requires some detachment to be sustainable which WBC lack due to their high profile.
Q: “Are you a ‘Feminist’?”
A: No. I am not a “Radical Feminist,” or even a “Feminist” of any kind, despite what many "MRAs" claim. Femitheism is unique to my followers and I, and I do not associate it with Feminism because the desired outcomes are drastically and absolutely different in almost every way. And, although I do believe in some obviously tangible “Patriarchal Constructs,” I do not support or even care much about “Patriarchy Theory,” and I do not care much about defending concepts like “Rape Culture,” and so forth. I have my own phrases and concepts. I do argue on behalf of those Feminist concepts sometimes, but mostly out of boredom; I have no desire to prove their legitimacy beyond that. And, just for future reference, anyone who claims that I am a Feminist, or that my writings are Feminist-related, or that my group is a Feminist group, or that my followers are Feminists, is wrong. I am not a Feminist, and neither are they. We are Fethez who follow Femitheism. We, and our ideological set, are entirely dissociated from Feminism/Feminists. This fact has been made clear across all of my platforms for nearly two years now, and most of the MRAs still haven’t quite figured it out yet (once again, likely due to shortcomings in reading comprehension). If anyone claims or states that I am a Feminist, or that we are Feminists/Feminism-related, they are either disingenuous, or simply a liar. Period.
Emphasis mine.
So basically, 90% of this thread is invalid now. Who would have thought ?
She is definitely a feminist, just an extreme type. In the same way a Maoist is a type of left winger.
Well thats good, means the feminists don't have to deal with her now.
Yes they do, and its notable that they dont.
Say something feminists think is sexist and they are all over calling for the sexist man to be shouted down. Feminists are not however telling Femitheist to shut up.
If people are to be unoffensive and free of gender biased as the feminists prefer and like to police, then they should also police feminist extremists like Femitheist as well and as fervently as the male chauvenist pigs they liie to target.
As they do not than it is good ammunition against the feminist movement and its self appointed right to police mens thoughts and unpolitically correct comments should be seen as a movement of gender bias and not gender equality.
This being said most feminists have not heard of this individual, and many would tell her to shut up. But I don't see any feminist movements connected to her trying to remove her platform under the banner of gender equality, equal rights awareness and educating people against offensive sexist material.
Frazzled wrote: Do we actually know if this person is real, or just a troll?
Does it matter?
If someone said. "round up all the Jews and place them in gas chambers.......only joking" there need be no mitigation of the condemnation.
A joker or a far right anti-semitic extremist are equally unlikely to start a new holocaust in the west, so the seriousness is irrelevant, the offence is relevant.
People have the right and reason to say that the Femitheist is a dangerous extremist and should be publically sanctioned. The think is that men don't have the political tooling or social infrastructure to call out dangerous 'sexists' as women can and do.
Men in general dont appear to have the right to say, 'I find this offensive'.
Frazzled wrote: Do we actually know if this person is real, or just a troll?
Does it matter?
If someone said. "round up all the Jews and place them in gas chambers.......only joking" there need be no mitigation of the condemnation.
A joker or a far right anti-semitic extremist are equally unlikely to start a new holocaust in the west, so the seriousness is irrelevant, the offence is relevant.
People have the right and reason to say that the Femitheist is a dangerous extremist and should be publically sanctioned. The think is that men don't have the political tooling or social infrastructure to call out dangerous 'sexists' as women can and do.
Men in general dont appear to have the right to say, 'I find this offensive'.
It matters in that we have plenty of trolls on the internet (you should see our conventions, like tens of thousands...). If this is a respected college prof or something making this statement however thats a whole different ballgame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Oh god. I just googled her, and it appears she has a actual fan club. A facebook group with 800 members.
Frazzled wrote: Do we actually know if this person is real, or just a troll?
Does it matter?
If someone said. "round up all the Jews and place them in gas chambers.......only joking" there need be no mitigation of the condemnation.
A joker or a far right anti-semitic extremist are equally unlikely to start a new holocaust in the west, so the seriousness is irrelevant, the offence is relevant.
People have the right and reason to say that the Femitheist is a dangerous extremist and should be publically sanctioned. The think is that men don't have the political tooling or social infrastructure to call out dangerous 'sexists' as women can and do.
Men in general dont appear to have the right to say, 'I find this offensive'.
It matters in that we have plenty of trolls on the internet (you should see our conventions, like tens of thousands...). If this is a respected college prof or something making this statement however thats a whole different ballgame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Oh god. I just googled her, and it appears she has a actual fan club. A facebook group with 800 members.
Crazy attracts crazy I guess.
Did you find an actual name?
She has a two year old daughter thats all I know. Take that as you will.
So basically: it would be better if women outnumbered men? For the most part I can agree with that. Man can potentially father thousands of offspring, women obviously can't. If I were going to 'design' a species, that is how I would do it. It's far more economical that way.
Unfortunately, evolution doesn't design! It adapts and so works against this idea. Whenever one gender type is more 'valuable' evolution will start to favour individuals with a genetic tenancy towards producing that gender type (because they have a greater chance of reproducing in general). Over time this means the valuable gender type will become more numerous, and thus: 'less valuable'. Eventually the pendulum starts to swing the other way, and the cycle continues until it finds equilibrium. At the moment male births slightly outnumber female births by about 1%. This is probably natures way of compensating for slightly higher male mortality (men are more susceptible to disease, and general death by stupidity). This is actually quite a good example of life being evolved rather than designed intelligently.
It's really a very interesting subject. There is, in fact, a species of ant in-which the females have evolved to reproduce asexually. Because ants only have two chromosomes all females are clones. Since clones carry forth 100% of your DNA, it makes sense for the queen to just cut males out of the loop and produce only copies of herself. The really fascinating part is that males of the species have adapted and found a way to transmit their genes forward anyway. So in the same way that 'life finds a way', apparently: 'men do too'. Link to more reading about ants
As for the world actually being a better place... I think that's probably just stupid and inflammatory. There is no way of knowing something like that. And since the proposal is something that could never happen, being both socially and genetically unsustainable, it doesn't really bear thinking about.
Smacks wrote: So basically: it would be better if women outnumbered men? For the most part I can agree with that. Man can potentially father thousands of offspring, women obviously can't. If I were going to 'design' a species, that is how I would do it. It's far more economical that way.
Unfortunately, evolution doesn't design! It adapts and so works against this idea. Whenever one gender type is more 'valuable' evolution will start to favour individuals with a genetic tenancy towards producing that gender type (because they have a greater chance of reproducing in general). Over time this means the valuable gender type will become more numerous, and thus: 'less valuable'. Eventually the pendulum starts to swing the other way, and the cycle continues until it finds equilibrium. At the moment male births slightly outnumber female births by about 1%. This is probably natures way of compensating for slightly higher male mortality (men are more susceptible to disease, and general death by stupidity). This is actually quite a good example of life being evolved rather than designed intelligently.
It's really a very interesting subject. There is, in fact, a species of ant in-which the females have evolved to reproduce asexually. Because ants only have two chromosomes all females are clones. Since clones carry forth 100% of your DNA, it makes sense for the queen to just cut males out of the loop and produce only copies of herself. The really fascinating part is that males of the species have adapted and found a way to transmit their genes forward anyway. So in the same way that 'life finds a way', apparently: 'men do too'. Link to more reading about ants
As for the world actually being a better place... I think that's probably just stupid and inflammatory. There is no way of knowing something like that. And since the proposal is something that could never happen, being both socially and genetically unsustainable, it doesn't really bear thinking about.
Yeah it seems like through evolution women might one day be able to reproduce asexually if there was ever a problem with the male population.
The problem with that is that you're talking THOUSANDS of generations. Evolution doesn't involve spontaneous ability to change. The species evolves. You don't. Stuff like bugs and bacteria evolve more rapidly because they are simpler organisms genetically speaking, and have lifecycles that are a fraction of our own.
Within the course of a single generation, most men dying out wouldn't magically allow for women to be able to reproduce asexually. It would end the race. Assuming we kept enough men alive to be able to maintain many generations to come, simply on a decline, there's still no guarantee that they would be able to develop this new reproduction ability. Evolution isn't a guided missile, it's the expression of new genes in whatever can feth the most before it dies.
And I mean, this is a profoundly bad idea, and I fear she doesn't understand basic biology. Greater genetic variation keeps the human race strong. Culling 40% of that will not make it stronger. You also herd all these men together somewhere, and then all it takes is a sudden plague to wipe them out, and then you're hosed. You're putting all your eggs in one basket, and not even seeming to worry about what needs to be done to guard that basket.
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.
daedalus wrote: The problem with that is that you're talking THOUSANDS of generations. Evolution doesn't involve spontaneous ability to change. The species evolves. You don't. Stuff like bugs and bacteria evolve more rapidly because they are simpler organisms genetically speaking, and have lifecycles that are a fraction of our own.
Within the course of a single generation, most men dying out wouldn't magically allow for women to be able to reproduce asexually. It would end the race. Assuming we kept enough men alive to be able to maintain many generations to come, simply on a decline, there's still no guarantee that they would be able to develop this new reproduction ability. Evolution isn't a guided missile, it's the expression of new genes in whatever can feth the most before it dies.
And I mean, this is a profoundly bad idea, and I fear she doesn't understand basic biology. Greater genetic variation keeps the human race strong. Culling 40% of that will not make it stronger. You also herd all these men together somewhere, and then all it takes is a sudden plague to wipe them out, and then you're hosed. You're putting all your eggs in one basket, and not even seeming to worry about what needs to be done to guard that basket.
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.
I... doubt it.
Of course. I didn't say anywhere of a rapid mutation. Though rapid mutations can happen. They are just highly improbable
daedalus wrote: Within the course of a single generation, most men dying out wouldn't magically allow for women to be able to reproduce asexually. It would end the race. Assuming we kept enough men alive to be able to maintain many generations to come, simply on a decline, there's still no guarantee that they would be able to develop this new reproduction ability. Evolution isn't a guided missile, it's the expression of new genes in whatever can feth the most before it dies.
In the short term: you actually could get rid of 90% of men and it wouldn't effect the population one iota. As I said before, men can easily produce thousands of offspring in their lifetime, and they would, given the opportunity.
However I think you've misinterpreted my point. I do not think that getting rid of 100% of men would suddenly allow females to reproduce asexually. My point was that genes (in this case male genes) don't go quietly, and evolution is surprisingly resourceful. If she were able to implement her system, it might work for a short time, but in the long run it is unsustainable because it makes male genes more valuable, so mutations that favour male genes will become more prominent. I think the easiest of these is just that people will prefer, and endeavor, to have more boys. This doesn't really even require mutation since it's something people would want anyway. In a forced environment you might also start to see a genetic element to this.
It is true that evolution is not a guided missile, but under such intense selection pressure you might see successful mutations come forward much more rapidly. The ants are extreme case where males have ended up producing asexually. It wouldn't surprise me if after a few generations of her proposed society,you would start to see human babies who are more resistant to being aborted and/or 'designed'. Evolution will favour male genes and slowly find ways to increase their numbers until it finds equilibrium. This is why I said her idea is unsustainable.
daedalus wrote: Within the course of a single generation, most men dying out wouldn't magically allow for women to be able to reproduce asexually. It would end the race. Assuming we kept enough men alive to be able to maintain many generations to come, simply on a decline, there's still no guarantee that they would be able to develop this new reproduction ability. Evolution isn't a guided missile, it's the expression of new genes in whatever can feth the most before it dies.
In the short term: you actually could get rid of 90% of men and it wouldn't effect the population one iota. As I said before, men can easily produce thousands of offspring in their lifetime, and they would, given the opportunity.
However I think you've misinterpreted my point. I do not think that getting rid of 100% of men would suddenly allow females to reproduce asexually. My point was that genes (in this case male genes) don't go quietly, and evolution is surprisingly resourceful. If she were able to implement her system, it might work for a short time, but in the long run it is unsustainable because it makes male genes more valuable, so mutations that favour male genes will become more prominent. I think the easiest of these is just that people will prefer, and endeavor, to have more boys. This doesn't really even require mutation since it's something people would want anyway. In a forced environment you might also start to see a genetic element to this.
It is true that evolution is not a guided missile, but under such intense selection pressure you might see successful mutations come forward much more rapidly. The ants are extreme case where males have ended up producing asexually. It wouldn't surprise me if after a few generations of her proposed society,you would start to see human babies who are more resistant to being aborted and/or 'designed'. Evolution will favour male genes and slowly find ways to increase their numbers until it finds equilibrium. This is why I said her idea is unsustainable.
That would be interesting, an unabortable baby. Now for superhumans.....
But as long as we go the way we are going currently in terms of evolution, I don't think we will see that big of a change. Until you know China stops with its shenanigans.
For the most part I can agree with that. Man can potentially father thousands of offspring, women obviously can't. If I were going to 'design' a species, that is how I would do it. It's far more economical that way.
This is where a rough gender parity and female risk awareness match up together.
You need a broadly equal balance population by gender even though one requires less men than you do women to achieve full fertility.
1, In small populations, say a handful of people on an isolated island you need to guaratnee you will get some male and some females in the next generation. If there was a signifgicant incrwase in the likelihood of a child being female then in a small population there is na increased change of there being fewer or even no males born.
2. You need more than a few males because ideally you want a wider selection of males fertilising the fmale population to prevent inbreeding and genetic bottlenecking.
3. You need plenty of spare males to do male orgientated tasks in a primitive culture, which involve all tasks with heavy risk or outside contact I use the word spare because males are expendible, for the reason you give. You can lose a lot of males due to hunting and tribal wars and still repopulate the tribe, loss of significant number of females causes a dangerous population crisis.
Smacks wrote: So basically: it would be better if women outnumbered men?
They do, but the numbers are near enough in balance. More importantly women are more risk aware.
They do, but largely because women live longer which skews the counting. Male births outnumber female births very slightly.
2. You need more than a few males because ideally you want a wider selection of males fertilising the fmale population to prevent inbreeding and genetic bottlenecking.
I think this is a good point, although I wouldn't be surprised if something like the 80:20 principle already applies. Specifically: 20% of men fathering 80% of children. I don't know if it's true, but It wouldn't surprise me. It would not be such a big shift from 80:20 to 100:10.
For the most part I can agree with that. Man can potentially father thousands of offspring, women obviously can't. If I were going to 'design' a species, that is how I would do it. It's far more economical that way.
This is where a rough gender parity and female risk awareness match up together.
You need a broadly equal balance population by gender even though one requires less men than you do women to achieve full fertility.
1, In small populations, say a handful of people on an isolated island you need to guaratnee you will get some male and some females in the next generation. If there was a signifgicant incrwase in the likelihood of a child being female then in a small population there is na increased change of there being fewer or even no males born.
2. You need more than a few males because ideally you want a wider selection of males fertilising the fmale population to prevent inbreeding and genetic bottlenecking.
3. You need plenty of spare males to do male orgientated tasks in a primitive culture, which involve all tasks with heavy risk or outside contact I use the word spare because males are expendible, for the reason you give. You can lose a lot of males due to hunting and tribal wars and still repopulate the tribe, loss of significant number of females causes a dangerous population crisis.
Interesting, Now I want to see someone experiment with an indigenous population of mice.
daedalus wrote: Within the course of a single generation, most men dying out wouldn't magically allow for women to be able to reproduce asexually. It would end the race. Assuming we kept enough men alive to be able to maintain many generations to come, simply on a decline, there's still no guarantee that they would be able to develop this new reproduction ability. Evolution isn't a guided missile, it's the expression of new genes in whatever can feth the most before it dies.
In the short term: you actually could get rid of 90% of men and it wouldn't effect the population one iota. As I said before, men can easily produce thousands of offspring in their lifetime, and they would, given the opportunity.
Yes it would. You just got rid of about 44% of the population.
However I think you've misinterpreted my point. I do not think that getting rid of 100% of men would suddenly allow females to reproduce asexually. My point was that genes (in this case male genes) don't go quietly, and evolution is surprisingly resourceful. If she were able to implement her system, it might work for a short time, but in the long run it is unsustainable because it makes male genes more valuable, so mutations that favour male genes will become more prominent. I think the easiest of these is just that people will prefer, and endeavor, to have more boys. This doesn't really even require mutation since it's something people would want anyway. In a forced environment you might also start to see a genetic element to this.
Fair enough. I sometimes see a stunning amount of misconception (USA) on how evolution works, and I suppose I was too quick to jump the gun this time based on an assumption.
It is true that evolution is not a guided missile, but under such intense selection pressure you might see successful mutations come forward much more rapidly. The ants are extreme case where males have ended up producing asexually. It wouldn't surprise me if after a few generations of her proposed society,you would start to see human babies who are more resistant to being aborted and/or 'designed'. Evolution will favour male genes and slowly find ways to increase their numbers until it finds equilibrium. This is why I said her idea is unsustainable.
I think a few generations is a couple hundred generations shorter than how long it would actually take, but my knowledge of genetics is strictly rooted in personal curiosity, not profession, so maybe an expert can come along and weigh in.
daedalus wrote: Within the course of a single generation, most men dying out wouldn't magically allow for women to be able to reproduce asexually. It would end the race. Assuming we kept enough men alive to be able to maintain many generations to come, simply on a decline, there's still no guarantee that they would be able to develop this new reproduction ability. Evolution isn't a guided missile, it's the expression of new genes in whatever can feth the most before it dies.
In the short term: you actually could get rid of 90% of men and it wouldn't effect the population one iota. As I said before, men can easily produce thousands of offspring in their lifetime, and they would, given the opportunity.
Yes it would. You just got rid of about 44% of the population.
Hehe, oops! "I'm sure it'll grow back".
I was actually talking more about population growth. "Get rid of" was a poor choice of words.
I think a few generations is a couple hundred generations shorter than how long it would actually take, but my knowledge of genetics is strictly rooted in personal curiosity, not profession, so maybe an expert can come along and weigh in.
Yeah, I admit I don't know either. "A few" was purposefully non specific. Evolution is typically a slow process, but I guess a lot depends on selection pressure. Under great pressure things will either adapt quickly or they won't, in which case they go extinct. There are already billions of people, so you probably wouldn't have to wait very long for those billion to one mutations to start revealing themselves.
It would not be possible for her to be a college professor.
regardless he wants to end violence, but admits in her first "clarified" answer regarding the VICE interview that she came up with the male castration idea because she was angry, and then stuck with it because some of her supporters like it.
Here is the classic example of someone being irrational, getting angry, coming up with a violent solution, and then being too weak in character to admit it was wrong and undo it so they stick to it regardless.
This is exactly the kind of person that should never have any power of decision in other peoples existences.
Of course though shes 22 and knows everything, right?
I have a 20 year old son, he "knows everything" which really means hes slowed.
The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know. -- Socrates
The more you know, the less you understand. -- Lao-Tse
If the above two quotes are wisdom, their polar opposites would be.
"When I know and understand everything, I know nothing at all. Ignorance is bliss."
Even if she had called herself one it would not have mattered. I can call myself president, but that does not mean I am one either.
You know, vague definition is vague. Say anything about her not being a true feminist and people will yell the true scotsman stuff at you . Here at least I do not think people would argue that she is a feminist when she says she is not, and the huge, overwhelming majority of people that qualify themselves as feminists do not either. (Also if you want to be a president, at least in France, you barely need to find two other people, one to act as secretary and one to act as treasurer. You will then be able to register an official association from which you will be the president. Not going to give you any hint of actual power, but you will be officially a president.)
Orlanth wrote: She is definitely a feminist, just an extreme type. In the same way a Maoist is a type of left winger.
Oh well, I was wrong.
Orlanth wrote: Say something feminists think is sexist and they are all over calling for the sexist man to be shouted down. Feminists are not however telling Femitheist to shut up.
Did you wonder why? I have a suggestion. As you mentioned, most feminists do not even know that femitheists exists. But those who do know that femitheists exist also think that they hold no real power, and do not in any way reinforce an existing status quo, and therefore are not a relevant subject of militantism. But they will not stop you from taking the glorious cause of saving the world from femitheists, I hope.
Orlanth wrote: As they do not than it is good ammunition against the feminist movement and its self appointed right to police mens thoughts and unpolitically correct comments should be seen as a movement of gender bias and not gender equality.
Can I remind you of this? There was a thread on dakka about it, even though I could not find it back. Feminists are not focusing on targeting what only one gender say, as far as I can tell. They are targeting what they consider would reinforce some negative status quo, or make it even worse, no matter if it was said by a man or a woman.
Please refrain from discussing other members of this site. If you want to know about someone's opinion on a certain subject, just PM them. Thanks.
On topic ... if we did a Venn Diagram showing men who spend too much time on the internet and men who feel very insecure about their social status, it would pretty neatly explain why some 22 y.o. nobody has garnered this much attention. Anyone hungry for a much more interesting brand of internet crazy should read some of Gene Ray's classic Time Cube rambling. Of course, Gene Ray is a cantankerous old man rather than some pretty young woman but, ah well, now I'm doing the Venn Diagram's job.
Manchu wrote: Please refrain from discussing other members of this site. If you want to know about someone's opinion on a certain subject, just PM them. Thanks.
On topic ... if we did a Venn Diagram showing men who spend too much time on the internet and men who feel very insecure about their social status, it would pretty neatly explain why some 22 y.o. nobody has garnered this much attention. Anyone hungry for a much more interesting brand of internet crazy should read some of Gene Ray's classic Time Cube rambling. Of course, Gene Ray is a cantankerous old man rather than some pretty young woman but, ah well, now I'm doing the Venn Diagram's job.
Or hateful because of the man that left her pregenant is always a big cause of hatred towards men. So it could be that what started this whole thinking.
He did? I read that he suggested she got attention because there are lot of insecure young men spending too much time on the internet and she was a pretty young girl. No reference to her being angry.
No, I didn't suggest anything about her underlying anger. That would be a complete misreading. Here is an accurate reading:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: he suggested she got attention because there are lot of insecure young men spending too much time on the internet and she was a pretty young girl
Rather than being one of the mythical manhaters, I think it is much more likely that she is just trollin the internet's largest, most vocal demographic (insecure males); where "trolling" is a kind of business strategy. In any event, her motivation (whatever it might be) is not necessary to explain why she is getting so much attention.
Manchu wrote: I think it is much more likely that she is just trolling one of the internet's largest demographics; where "trolling" is a kind of business strategy. In any event, her motivation (whatever it might be) is not necessary to explain why she is getting so much attention.
Trolling for attention sounds about right. Though I'm naturally wary of speculating about her motivations, especially when the subject is feminism. Why someone holds a certain belief does not make said belief any more or less valid. To speculate just becomes a kind of ad hominem "This idea is invalid because: she hates men" rather than "This idea is invalid because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny".
2. You need more than a few males because ideally you want a wider selection of males fertilising the fmale population to prevent inbreeding and genetic bottlenecking.
I think this is a good point, although I wouldn't be surprised if something like the 80:20 principle already applies. Specifically: 20% of men fathering 80% of children. I don't know if it's true, but It wouldn't surprise me. It would not be such a big shift from 80:20 to 100:10.
Of course motivation affects validity of outlook. How valid is the outlook of someone who believes US cities are dangerous because they are prejudiced against black people? That said, you are correct that attributing motive can be a (relatively) clever form of personal attack. But here's how I broke it down for a friend: If I take her at her word, then I must necessarily conclude she is superficial, poorly socialized, and/or stupid. But if I attribute it all to satire (especially in the sense of winning internet fame) then I can conclude she is subtle, witty, and a brilliant observer of contemporary social tensions.
Smacks wrote: Trolling for attention sounds about right. Though I'm naturally wary of speculating about her motivations, especially when the subject is feminism.
Orlanth wrote: Great film watch it if you havent Idiocracy.
Heh, yeah I've seen idiocracy, the intro is hilarious "I'ma feth all'a ya'll"
The truth however is that the human brain has been shrinking for some time. Over the last 50,000 years we've lost about 10%, which is quite a significant amount. Some people don't like to believe that this has adversely impacted intelligence, but I find that hard to believe. In the 'modern' world (post-agricultural revolution) there is less pressure on people to have big brains in order to survive.
Numerous studies have been produced saying that a smaller brain != less intelligence*. Our brains aren't getting smaller because we're getting dumber. They're getting smaller because they're becoming more efficient. Most of your bodies energy is tied up in your nervous system, bigger is not better.
*Seriously, if this were even remotely true, we'd be dumber than Elephants, Whales, and Dolphins. The Neanderthals had larger brains than our contemporary ancestors.
LordofHats wrote: Numerous studies have been produced saying that a smaller brain != less intelligence*. Our brains aren't getting smaller because we're getting dumber. They're getting smaller because they're becoming more efficient. Most of your bodies energy is tied up in your nervous system, bigger is not better.
*Seriously, if this were even remotely true, we'd be dumber than Elephants, Whales, and Dolphins. The Neanderthals had larger brains than our contemporary ancestors.
Elephants, whales, and dolphins all have smaller brains relative to their body mass. The human brain becoming more efficient is, as I said, what some people like to believe, but no one likes to think of themselves a dumber. There are a lot of parallels in in nature: most domestic animals have smaller brains than their wild counterparts. Probably because breeding for tameness tends to promote animals with more "child-like" characteristics, and thus slower brain development.
In experiments between wolves and dogs, wolves are markedly better problemsolvers. However, dogs are much better at asking humans to help, which is probably the smarter move (even if it isn't). Really it's not unlike the modern interdependence we have on each other and our societies.
Elephants, whales, and dolphins all have smaller brains relative to their body mass.
Then the Shrew would be the smartest animal on the planet.*
Studies have proven all the 'we're getting dumber' theories to be incorrect. No correlation can be positively produced for any of them. What we do know is that even though our brains have decreased in mass and volume, we still have roughly the same number of neurons we did age ago. Our brains aren't shedding thinking power, they're shedding the 'fat' so to speak. If anything we might be even better thinkers than our ancestors. At the very least, we use a lot less of our body's energy doing the same amount of thinking.
*Seriously. Human's don't have the most mass, the most volume, the most cranial capacity, we don't even have the most neurons. Trying to take a change in any of those factors and use it as evidence we're getting dumber or smarter is completely illogical.
Taking your logic the US has no national taxation, no national health care and no national rule of law , and neither does any other country; because you will always find someone who doesn't pay their taxes, doesn't get health care or breaks the law and gets away with it.
That's disingenuous. My argument is that a global minimum wage is not technically achievable due to the nature of human behavior. This is not an argument which turns on the manner in which any specific human behaves.
They were not morally comperable, under the context of your orginal comments, which were to mock the two 'policies' side by side, which is a moral comparison.
No it isn't, at least not by necessity. A qualitative comparison is not implicitly a moral one.
LordofHats wrote: Then the Shrew would be the smartest animal on the planet.
Meh, smaller animals have proportionally larger brains anyway, you need to adjust for lots of factors. Obviously the relationship between brain size and intelligence is a complex one, but that does not mean there is no connection. Wales, elephants and dolphins for example, are all still intelligent animals.
Studies have proven all the 'we're getting dumber' theories to be incorrect.
Well, I would greatly like to see this proof. So far as I know, it is very difficult to prove either way because we don't have a prehistoric person to test. But I don't see a lot of genetic pressure on people to be smarter, so I don't see why we would get smarter. And also our heads are shrinking... Which doesn't bode well. Of course this is just my opinion.
What we do know is that even though our brains have decreased in mass and volume, we still have roughly the same number of neurons we did age ago. Our brains aren't shedding thinking power, they're shedding the 'fat' so to speak. If anything we might be even better thinkers than our ancestors. At the very least, we use a lot less of our body's energy doing the same amount of thinking.
Certainly our brains are changing. I'm sure there are things we do much better now, we are adapted for the world we live in after all. But imagining we do everything better sounds too much like hubris. Maybe our brains are more efficient, but there is probably a cost, and something lost somewhere.
Google Scholar is a wonderful resource. No one has ever produced a study saying "we're getting dumber' that didn't immediately fall apart when put under scrutiny. Take for example the one a few years ago that attempted to argue that because our reaction times had decreased over the past century, our IQ's were lower (based on a complete myth that the two are connected). Yet, there are a half dozen studies showing that each new generation does successively better on IQ tests to the tune of 3 points. The Flynn effect disproves almost all such studies.
Really it's not even worth going into the Flynn effect, neurons, etc. Almost all studies that start "humans are getting dumber" go into a eugenical rant about how dumb people have more babies than smart people even though numerous sociological surveys show no correlation between IQ and the number of children someone has (people confuse education with IQ in this case).
Of course this is just my opinion.
Fortunately science isn't based in opinions.
But imagining we do everything better sounds too much like hubris. Maybe our brains are more efficient, but there is probably a cost, and something lost somewhere.
Continuing the definition trend, you should look up what efficiency means. The most obvious thing humans have lost over time isn't intellect but physical prowess (our muscle mass has decreased by a lot over the past ten thousand years)
"Humans get dumber" is...dumb. We adapt. A good example is memory: kids tend to have a significantally worse long-time memory than older people have which also affects IQ. However, they excel in other areas to compensate. The difference is just natural as we can access the internet everywhere (well...almost) and get the info immediately. When was the last time you parked your car on the street and had a look at a map instead of using a navigation system?
LordofHats wrote: No one has ever produced a study saying "we're getting dumber' that didn't immediately fall apart when put under scrutiny.
As I have already said, it is difficult to prove because there is a lack of information. In the same way it is difficult to know if t-rex had feathers. Importantly there is a lot of resistance to the idea because people don't like to hear that they're dumb, so obviously they will try to poke holes in any tests that say they might be. As I have already pointed out, the parallel with dogs and wolves showed that wolves were better at solving problems.
Take for example the one a few years ago that attempted to argue that because our reaction times had decreased over the past century, our IQ's were lower (based on a complete myth that the two are connected). Yet, there are a half dozen studies showing that each new generation does successively better on IQ tests to the tune of 3 points. The Flynn effect disproves almost all such studies.
I'm familiar with the Flynn effect. If you go read the page yourself you will see that there are plenty of explanations and criticisms, which make it of questionable relevance here.
Almost all studies that start "humans are getting dumber" go into a eugenical rant about how dumb people have more babies than smart people even though numerous sociological surveys show no correlation between IQ and the number of children someone has (people confuse education with IQ in this case).
That was not my intention, or something I'm interested in, or approve of.
Of course this is just my opinion.
Fortunately science isn't based in opinions.
Thank you, I'm aware of what science is. And stated that it was my opinion because it is how I interpret the evidence. Your opinion seems to be "My brain is smaller, that must mean I'm getting smarter" to me that is akin to "Ice-cream is making me thinner", but each to their own.
Continuing the definition trend, you should look up what efficiency means.
There is really no need to be rude and patronizing. I know what efficiency means. I was actually referring to us becoming more efficient at certain types of problem (such as social interactions). In the same way a chess grandmaster is more efficient at chess problems. This does not mean he is more intelligent overall.
Anyway, I don't want there to be a bad feeling, and this conversation is slightly off topic, so shall we just agree to disagree, and that we interpret the evidence differently.
LordofHats wrote: Numerous studies have been produced saying that a smaller brain != less intelligence*. Our brains aren't getting smaller because we're getting dumber. They're getting smaller because they're becoming more efficient. Most of your bodies energy is tied up in your nervous system, bigger is not better.
Its not the size of the brain that matters, or small people would be less intelligent and there is no correlation between head size and intelligence amongst humans.
A brain has a certain number of connectors, it is the number of connections between neurons that are its power, not thier length or brain volume. A brain has similar architecture when its a small brain in an infants head and the physically larger brain in the resulting adults head.
In esence growing up swells the head you are born with, it does not build extra brain.
The truth however is that the human brain has been shrinking for some time. Over the last 50,000 years we've lost about 10%, which is quite a significant amount. Some people don't like to believe that this has adversely impacted intelligence, but I find that hard to believe. In the 'modern' world (post-agricultural revolution) there is less pressure on people to have big brains in order to survive.
Ironically, idiocracy is now.
If we are getting dumber, and that is an 'if', it wont be because of stupid peole breeding it will be because of technology making life too simple.
Literacy caused the death of eidetic memory, modern media even more so. Nobody learns the ancient myths by rote anymore, there are no bards.
This is a minor but symbolic example, I do not lament literacy or the information age, its just an easy example to illustrate for you.
However if people goodle answers they don't think or do proper research, mobile communications can stunt human interaction and lead to undeveloped social skills. Can this have an eventual effect on human intelligence. Possibly so.
We cant tell though because first evolutionary changes dont occur at the same pace of technological changes, while excessive early age access to electronics media can stunt development by bypassing human interaction, those are social changes not evolutionary ones. Take the electronic toys away and kids adapt to talking and playing ball with each other quickly enough.
More importantly the wide breadth of human technology may increase intelligence by providing stimuli that previous generations could not experience. Googling information may lead to lazy research and copy/paste coursework, but on the flip side it opens a large proportion of the canon of human knowledge to the everyday common man and child.
My resistance to the idea is that there is 0 evidence for it. Just subjective opinion and doom saying hiding behind illogical arguments and trumped up data.
the parallel with dogs and wolves showed that wolves were better at solving problems.
Chimpanzees have a smaller brain than a gorilla (and about the same ratio), yet are better problem solvers than their larger cousins. So yes, again. Brain size has been proven to have no correlation to intelligence. On top of that, Chimps have a high brain-body mass ratio than humans, yet are not as intelligent as us.
Again, you don't even need studies to prove that some studies are all smoke and mirrors. Basic fact gather is all that's necessary to show that intelligence is infinitely more complex than simple things like brain mass, volume, or body mass ratio.
I'm familiar with the Flynn effect. If you go read the page yourself you will see that there are plenty of explanations and criticisms, which make it of questionable relevance here.
The criticism in the article are about the question "what is intelligence" which is a whole barrel of monkeys (Flynn took his effect as proof that IQ doesn't actually measure intelligence at all), but that's beyond this. Really it just goes into the point that the 'we're getting dumber' arguments all start with false basis to begin with, since they solely tackle things like IQ and brain mass, which have been proven not to have significant correlates to intelligence. That's all aside from the issue that defining intelligence itself is a big argument to itself.
That was not my intention, or something I'm very interested in.
I'm not saying you do, I'm referring to the studies I've read about the subject. When they go into "why" they always seem to go that way, which is a very good sign that the people writing them are very bad scientists (or not scientists at all).
And stated that it was my opinion because it is how I interpret the evidence.
I'm saying the evidence is bad.
"My brain is smaller, that must mean I'm getting smarter"
No, my opinion is "scientists who study the brain say this whole 'we're getting dumber' thing isn't true and has no evidence to back it up." Which isn't even an opinion it's just a statement of fact. The brain's mass has decreased because it is becoming more efficient. It's entirely possible this means the brains cognitive abilities have decreased (as improved efficiency in a system != improved or equal system out put), but none of the studies suggest that. They solely sought to answer the question "what has brain size decreased in modern humans."
There is really no need to be rude and patronizing.
I apologize for that. I see bad logic/arguments and am compelled to say so (it's a gift... and a curse). I do tend to get a little over zealous
This isn't feminism, this is A. the plot of the Anne Rice novel "Queen of the Damned" turned into a political movement and B. crazier then a weasel stuffed in a redneck's overalls.
you forgot C:
90% of dakkanites fantasy (so long as they are not part of the culled)
LordofHats wrote: My resistance to the idea is that there is 0 evidence for it. Just subjective opinion and doom saying hiding behind illogical arguments and trumped up data.
I don't think it is fair to say that there is 0 evidence. The evidence for the human brain shrinking over time is quite good. And the evidence for a connection (albeit a complex one) between brain size and intelligence is also good. It is clear that our brain has been changing. I agree that it is difficult (perhaps impossible) to know exactly what has changed. To say our brains have become more efficient is just as speculative as saying they haven't.
the parallel with dogs and wolves showed that wolves were better at solving problems.
Chimpanzees have a smaller brain than a gorilla (and about the same ratio), yet are better problem solvers than their larger cousins. So yes, again. Brain size has been proven to have no correlation to intelligence. On top of that, Chimps have a high brain-body mass ratio than humans, yet are not as intelligent as us.
Humans have a much higher encephalization quotient than chimps, and chimps are also higher than gorillas. I disagree that there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence,and I disagree strongly that this has been 'proven'. Certainly not to my satisfaction, or to the satisfaction of the scientists who developed things such as encephalization quotient.
Regardless chimps and gorillas are different animals so compering them is always going to be fraught with difficulty. I find the experiment with wolves and dogs compelling because wolves are the direct and recent ancestor of dogs. Wolves are to dogs, as Cavemen are to us. Like us, dogs have lost brain mass since being wolves. Their brains have also changed. They are much better at reading people's emotions and gestures than wolves. But in raw problem solving they weren't quite as fast. You might not find this compelling, I'm sure you could poke holes in it all day (as you can quite a lot of experiments). I think it's interesting, and "if" it is a good parallel of human evolution then it does indicate that we might not be quite as sharp as our ancestors. I don't know if there is any shame in that. They obviously lived much more difficult lives, and lived or died on their wits.
I apologize for that. I see bad logic/arguments and am compelled to say so (it's a gift... and a curse). I do tend to get a little over zealous
While having my use of logic referred to as "bad" is quite a cutting blow, I accept your apology good sir!
You know, my question is how she'll convince women to go along with this plan. I don't think many outside of individuals who share her beliefs will agree to have their sons/husbands/friends killed just for the sake of someone's personal ideology.
Not killed - forcibly castrated so that only a select few are permitted to breed, and designer baby tech and abortions will be used to ensure a ratio of 10:90. The male population will therefore die off slowly as normal, there just won't be as many males born to replace them.
Not that it's any better
The woman is clearly a loon and hasn't thought about the consequences of such a movement...men still dominate the worlds government's, militaries and police forces. The moment this movement became a serious threat (which it won't), men would fight back. We certainly wouldn't go quietly and submit to be forcibly castrated in front of a hostile jeering crowd of women as this loon wants.
Plus shell face opposition from women who quite like the current sex ratio as it is. I imagine most of them would to retain their easy access to D's...
She's not worthy of our time and attention, she's either a mentally ill loon or an attention seeking troll.
Killing or no killing, this woman's idea's are insane. Not only that, but they are founded entirely on ideology as evidenced by her opening paragraph:
" 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...". Emphasis mine. She later tries to legitimize her ideas by mentioning that people with knowledge in genetics support her belief that same sex couples breeding wouldn't lead to a genetic bottleneck. Which is, afaik, true but that still doesn't answer the million dollar question here: What evidence do you have to support your belief? You spout a bunch of radical feminist propaganda but as far as I can tell this is just some nonsense she made up.
Worse, this sort of ideology is toxic. It's the sort of ideology that the Nazis used to justify their actions ("We don't like these people! We should get rid of them!"). Yes, I am comparing her to a nazi because that's what she is. She's a fascist who wants to control the way people think and feel to further propagate her own strange beliefs and to get rid of a subset of the population in some misguided belief that will change things. feth her and every other group that share similar beliefs.
I have no idea what it is either, but then I've already been to 4chan. That probably cut a year off my life expectancy. Tumblr and I just might die at 30 @_@
Do you mean those little glasses I get my scotch in?
my femethiest masters do not let me log onto the fem-net if its one of those fem-net things like fembook, or femigram.
Although I do still have a myspace account i can access through my compuserve account on the dial up model I managed to put together on the manservartion. go go 26kbps. My ACDC album collection will finish downloading in a few weeks...
Jehan-reznor wrote: Hitler's final solution was first also only a theoretical thing.
Well, that is a nice Godwin, but I do not see the link between “Femitheist never said she would kill anyone, only that she would do some strange birth manipulation” and “the final solution was theoretical”.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Hitler's final solution was first also only a theoretical thing.
Well, that is a nice Godwin, but I do not see the link between “Femitheist never said she would kill anyone, only that she would do some strange birth manipulation” and “the final solution was theoretical”.
Uhm, forcing a giant part of earth's population to be castrated won't be accepted. At all. In her dream world of sexual frustration, where she actually gathered people following her and set things into motion, violence is in evitable and she'd likely be responsible for the deaths of at least a few of her followers.
Sigvatr wrote: In her dream world of sexual frustration, where she actually gathered people following her and set things into motion, violence is in evitable and she'd likely be responsible for the deaths of at least a few of her followers.
She is obviously deluded, so who are you to tell she is not deluded enough to believe she can convince everyone without the need of violence ?
R; "Feminist" wants to reduce male population by 90% and enslave the rest as a stable breeding population.
crazy."
?
