Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 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?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 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 do we have any idea if she is a college professor or anything? I'm just thinking this is some anonymous troll.

She's probably not a professor, but she does have a strong opinion!

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.

Such as it being near extinct.

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.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Just a random thought: how on earth would you even *make* people, mostly men, agree to that motion?

If you're part of the first 10% who agree, I suppose your balls will be spared and you'll have 9 women in your bed?

 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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 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.

 Smacks wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 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.

 Smacks wrote:

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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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:

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

Somewhere it said she is 22.

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."

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So basically, 90% of this thread is invalid now. Who would have thought ?

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.

I fail to see any connection between what you quote and what you said. Did you meant to quote someone else?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I fail to see any connection between what you quote and what you said. Did you meant to quote someone else?

Who? He suggested there might be an underlying anger to the woman. SO i suggested it might be from a bad experience with men in general

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".

 Smacks wrote:

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.

But which 10% have c100% of the kids?



continued...



Great film watch it if you havent Idiocracy.

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.

The subject is not feminism here .

 Orlanth wrote:
But which 10% have c100% of the kids?

Spoiler:

continued...

Great film watch it if you havent Idiocracy.

Obligatory XKCD response:

 Smacks wrote:

They do, but largely because women live longer which skews the counting. Male births outnumber female births very slightly.

Thanks for that bit of info. I was unaware that was the case.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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?

Kirsty.