Quote from: Krista MilburnI 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.
Quote from: Krista MilburnI 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.
Sounds good to me. (http://www.vice.com/read/is-reducing-the-male-population-by-90-percent-the-solution-to-all-our-problems?utm_source=vicefbus)
I was going to start a thread on Antinatalism but this is way more interesting tbh.
If you want more arguments in favor, I'd start by saying this is really the only way to prevent shit like this (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/world/europe/coordinated-attacks-on-women-in-cologne-were-unprecedented-germany-says.html) without being a horrible racist Nazi.
ok like at the end of dr strangelove
The same, but different.
Namely in that Strangelove's scenario was/was caused by patriarchy.
I love that movie so much though god damn.
This reeks of human rights violations.
I also have an ethical problem with antinatalism, but I'll save that for another thread, plus I'm awful at articulating my thoughts on philosophy.
this has to be satire
this is dumb
im too tired to explain why but this is fukin dumb
now if youll excuse me im gonna go reduce the zwimmy population by 100%
Seriously is anyone going to bother explaining why this isn't a good idea, or are we all just going to react with casual dismissal (sort of like how most white people/men did to early propositions of racial equality/women's suffrage)?
Because I have a lot of (I think) valid arguments in favor, but I haven't heard any against here or elsewhere that weren't based on gut reactions.
Quote from: zwimmy on January 6, 2016 05:42 AM
now if youll excuse me im gonna go reduce the zwimmy population by 100%
This means you're going to sleep, right? Not a great way of wording it. You might worry someone (me).
for this plan to work, scientists would have to genetically engineer men to triple their testicle size
at 9 chicks per every dude, you can't just give everyone a harem and expect this to sort itself out
^Finally genuine criticism.
Seriously though I had an extremely negative reaction before reading the article ("Oh, there go the Feminazis again, trying to take my ass-slaps/breast sliders/skimpy costumes or whatever").
But after reading it I realized she's one of the few out there whose ideas address the reduction of both sex's suffering.
Even so I realize asking people to read an entire article on something they're not interested in is a bit much.
Quote from: Bamyasi on January 6, 2016 06:06 AM
Seriously is anyone going to bother explaining why this isn't a good idea, or are we all just going to react with casual dismissal (sort of like how most white people/men did to early propositions of racial equality/women's suffrage)?
Because I have a lot of (I think) valid arguments in favor, but I haven't heard any against here or elsewhere that weren't based on gut reactions.
Sorry, I was already smug-anime-face'd. [insert wry smirk here]
Anyway, I don't care to argue things like this, especially since you have more debate experience, so no matter what points I make, I'll always lose the argument.
Quote from: Bamyasi on January 6, 2016 06:06 AM
Seriously is anyone going to bother explaining why this isn't a good idea, or are we all just going to react with casual dismissal (sort of like how most white people/men did to early propositions of racial equality/women's suffrage)?
i think it warrants an explanation on why it's a good idea first, because it's so absurd no one is taking it seriously
its like a weird cold dystopian future that reads worryingly like bad literotica fetish fuel, especially with some of those interviewer questions.
Quote
What kind of men would you choose for breeding?
Would men be kept in isolation like stud horses?
Some men may aspire to more than luxury breeding pens.
i am so desensitized to stuff like this that my intial reaction was no reaction at all. complete indifference even after reading through the article because again i have just assumed its either satire or some kind of delusion.
Yeah I forgot to tell you to put your stupid goggles on because the interviewer sounds like a nimrod.
Quote from: rtil on January 6, 2016 06:23 AM
i think it warrants an explanation on why it's a good idea first, because it's so absurd no one is taking it seriously
You're right.
The selling points are for me as follows, in greentext for your convenience:
- The male body is a technology.
- It was a useful technology, there being wildlife to fend off, villages to pillage, crates to lift, etc.
- Thanks to increased automation (UAV, forklifts) in all first world countries, this technology is now obsolescing.
- We used to need a lot of them, because the world was more dangerous, but in a tamer world, this need has been lessened.
- Female bodies, in contrast, are inherently valuable as they possess a means of production (the uterus).
- The sexual marketplace is designed so that the male gamete is worth far less than the female.
- Men can, on average, impregnate about 400 women a year, a woman can only become pregnant once in nine months.
- The institutions designed to artificially raise the male sexual market value (the church, marriage, nuclear families, every career ever) are now crumbling before our eyes (making people who can make marriage/family work even more impressive), thanks to humanism, polyamory, etc.
- So what we have now is a bunch of unhappy men nobody will ever love walking around being miserable and feeling useless. This pain is very real and very bad.
- Natural selection used to remove these men from the gene pool, but we all know what happened there (monogamy, civilization).
- In addition, men commit far more violent crimes (including suicide) and overall (physical) infliction of harm (psychological harm I'd say is more equal).
- Therefor, female should be the default sex (I don't see any logical leaps here, do you?).
That's all I got.
Quote from: ProtoChaud on January 6, 2016 06:19 AM
Sorry, I was already smug-anime-face'd. [insert wry smirk here]
Anyway, I don't care to argue things like this, especially since you have more debate experience, so no matter what points I make, I'll always lose the argument.
I'm actually really bad at logic and debate (watch rtil pwn me).
The smug anime face was a bitchy response, sorry. Human rights is just such a nebulous concept.
Quote from: Bamyasi on January 6, 2016 07:09 AM
The selling points are for me as follows, in greentext for your convenience:
- The male body is a technology.
if we're speaking so crudely the same could be said of the female body, or any organic lifeform
Quote- It was a useful technology, there being wildlife to fend off, villages to pillage, crates to lift, etc.
- Thanks to increased automation (UAV, forklifts) in all first world countries, this technology is now obsolescing.
- We used to need a lot of them, because the world was more dangerous, but in a tamer world, this need has been lessened.
this is implying that males are only useful in manual labor. the reality is that there are many industries that are male-dominated that have nothing to do with these qualifications - specifically almost all fields of engineering, machine operation, electronics, law enforcement/fire prevention or any kind of emergency service, automotive repair/service, financial services, almost any kind of tech startup.. the list goes on. it's not that women can't do this kind of work but for whatever reason they don't want to. and most of these fields are growing industries that will never be obsolete, especially engineering which is a broad brush to paint and affects all kinds of different fields of work.
i guess you could argue that in a world where only 10% of the population is male that eventually women would be doing all this work, but it's a big gap to fill. you'd have to have a lot of men passing on this knowledge if they would be barred from doing it and forced to pass their professions on to women. seems counter-intuitive to me.
Quote
- Female bodies, in contrast, are inherently valuable as they possess a means of production (the uterus).
- The sexual marketplace is designed so that the male gamete is worth far less than the female.
- Men can, on average, impregnate about 400 women a year, a woman can only become pregnant once in nine months.
this isn't wrong, but the world is generally already trending towards overpopulation.
let's say that there were ~7bn people just like now but 10% of the population was male. that's 700 million males. according to 2014 demographics data, about 25% of those males are not old enough to breed, and maybe 30% probably aren't fit for it in total, or whatever. that leaves 490 million breeding males, enough to easily impregnate every ~4.4bn female fit for breeding if they were forced to do so.
if males were essentially only kept for breeding purposes, 10% is far too much. we're talking serious overhead here, so why not shave off even more since they're offering nothing of value to society besides their reproductive capabilities? you'd only need to keep around 20 million males worldwide provided they're being used efficiently.
Quote
- The institutions designed to artificially raise the male sexual market value (the church, marriage, nuclear families, every career ever) are now crumbling before our eyes (making people who can make marriage/family work even more impressive), thanks to humanism, polyamory, etc.
- So what we have now is a bunch of unhappy men nobody will ever love walking around being miserable and feeling useless. This pain is very real and very bad.
this makes a lot of wild assumptions i can't even begin to address. the first that all the things you listed exist only to "artificially raise the male sexual market value", that women only look for these things in men and men feel like they can't be useful without them.
women are just as miserable as men, too. but there are lots of reasons why besides just these things. imo this is an extremely narrow view of society and relationships. don't have much to say about it besides that.
Quote
- Natural selection used to remove these men from the gene pool, but we all know what happened there (monogamy, civilization).
- In addition, men commit far more violent crimes (including suicide) and overall (physical) infliction of harm (psychological harm I'd say is more equal).
- Therefor, female should be the default sex (I don't see any logical leaps here, do you?).
if there was a default sex then evolution would have already solved this problem for us, but it never happened. there are some instances in which 'playing god' might do us favors but artificially culling most of the male population seems like the byproduct of a twisted and warped view of the world and, at best, a delusional and impractical solution to a problem that's not as extreme as you or the author believes.[/list]
also, i'm not aware of any empirical data or small-scale model off which this ideology is based that would give credence to its application on a worldwide scale having an overall positive and practical effect on humanity. if there is i'd be willing to read it
I'll have to do some digging for a study that simulates this. The interview seems to have been given in promotion of her manifesto, which will hopefully provide the data. Right now we only really have hypotheticals.
Quote from: rtil on January 6, 2016 08:38 AM
if we're speaking so crudely the same could be said of the female body, or any organic lifeform
Yes. I also agree about it's being crude. An unavoidable comparison nonetheless.
Quote from: rtil on January 6, 2016 08:38 AM
this is implying that males are only useful in manual labor. the reality is that there are many industries that are male-dominated that have nothing to do with these qualifications - specifically almost all fields of engineering, machine operation, electronics, law enforcement/fire prevention or any kind of emergency service, automotive repair/service, financial services, almost any kind of tech startup.. the list goes on. it's not that women can't do this kind of work but for whatever reason they don't want to. and most of these fields are growing industries that will never be obsolete, especially engineering which is a broad brush to paint and affects all kinds of different fields of work.
i guess you could argue that in a world where only 10% of the population is male that eventually women would be doing all this work, but it's a big gap to fill. you'd have to have a lot of men passing on this knowledge if they would be barred from doing it and forced to pass their professions on to women. seems counter-intuitive to me.
The common feminist argument is that the male dominance of these fields, at least the white-collar ones, is all that's driving women away. If it has more to do with adherence to dated gender roles as I suspect, I see no reason why women couldn't adopt traditionally masculine ones.
Quote from: rtil on January 6, 2016 08:38 AM
this isn't wrong, but the world is generally already trending towards overpopulation.
let's say that there were ~7bn people just like now but 10% of the population was male. that's 700 million males. according to 2014 demographics data, about 25% of those males are not old enough to breed, and maybe 30% probably aren't fit for it in total, or whatever. that leaves 490 million breeding males, enough to easily impregnate every ~4.4bn female fit for breeding if they were forced to do so.
if males were essentially only kept for breeding purposes, 10% is far too much. we're talking serious overhead here, so why not shave off even more since they're offering nothing of value to society besides their reproductive capabilities? you'd only need to keep around 20 million males worldwide provided they're being used efficiently.
I agree with your conclusion here.
Quote from: rtil on January 6, 2016 08:38 AM
this makes a lot of wild assumptions i can't even begin to address. the first that all the things you listed exist only to "artificially raise the male sexual market value", that women only look for these things in men and men feel like they can't be useful without them.
women are just as miserable as men, too. but there are lots of reasons why besides just these things. imo this is an extremely narrow view of society and relationships. don't have much to say about it besides that.
It was wrong/hyperbolic of me to imply raising male sexual market value was those things' only purpose, though I do think it's a major function. It's a certain kind of man who can't feel useful without them (see: r9k, MGTOW, etc.), and those are the ones who would cease to exist in this particular thought experiment. I use "sexual market value" in very broad terms, to include everything that might weigh in a woman's decision to kids, but power and provisions especially. Those institutions gave men power, significantly, men who would otherwise have less.
I agree with everything in the second paragraph. Women profess misery for some reasons largely exclusive to them, but I do think some sadnesses transcend gender. It is very narrow, you're right.
Quote from: rtil on January 6, 2016 08:38 AM
if there was a default sex then evolution would have already solved this problem for us, but it never happened. there are some instances in which 'playing god' might do us favors but artificially culling most of the male population seems like the byproduct of a twisted and warped view of the world and, at best, a delusional and impractical solution to a problem that's not as extreme as you or the author believes.
There may not be a default sex, but there is a default selector sex (with good reason, is that flaky dude really going to stay with you and protect your bump/smile from saber-toothed tigers all winter?). Civilization and its dysgenic effects have rendered human evolution basically stagnant. My worldview is definitely warped in this instance, if only because I spend a lot of (probably too much) time around very unhappy young men online. Their unhappiness is justified: evolutionary psychology is depressing as fuck (get it?).
g a y
Bam is this saying we all have to become trans females until only 10% of the male population remains?
[spoiler]please no[/spoiler]
The plan outlined in your OP post and the article could never work in today's society because men are still the beast of burden, the author believes that the whole world is this white collar office space where her and her colleagues get around and discuss last night's sex in the city and drink coffee while the male coworkers drone around and rapingly stare at their tits. The fact is man, the human male, is still the majority force in agriculture, heavy industry, and the vast majority of service jobs exlcuding hospitality services. To kill 90 percent of all men would pull the carpet out from under the feet of modern civilization and cause it to fall into a black abyss.
If robots could somehow replace the lost manpower, the remaining 10% of men would have to be philosopher kings, adept in statecraft in order to event nuclear war as there would be no options for groundfighting because ALL THE MEN ARE GONE.
Women in this brave new world would most likely become a lower class, with the author you cited even suggesting it by stating the remaining men would have a cornucopia of special privileges afforded to them. This solution is the crux of stupid 2000s feminist work and only showcases how far the movement has fallen and how mentally deficient and vapid these people can be.
man I can't believe I seriously responded to a bait post.
Quote from: Bamyasi on January 6, 2016 10:08 AM
The common feminist argument is that the male dominance of these fields, at least the white-collar ones, is all that's driving women away. If it has more to do with adherence to dated gender roles as I suspect, I see no reason why women couldn't adopt traditionally masculine ones.
i'm aware of this but if a society is going to artificially force men out of all work then a massive re-education has to take place. many women would potentially be forced out of jobs they like in order to fill the void.
Quote
It was wrong/hyperbolic of me to imply raising male sexual market value was those things' only purpose, though I do think it's a major function. It's a certain kind of man who can't feel useful without them (see: r9k, MGTOW, etc.), and those are the ones who would cease to exist in this particular thought experiment. I use "sexual market value" in very broad terms, to include everything that might weigh in a woman's decision to kids, but power and provisions especially. Those institutions gave men power, significantly, men who would otherwise have less.
a lot plays into who has power over who but i feel a lot of these are largely out of our control. like where you are born, the society and class you're born into, the sex you're born as. everyone's dealt a different hand and there's not much you can do but play it.
Quote
There may not be a default sex, but there is a default selector sex (with good reason, is that flaky dude really going to stay with you and protect your bump/smile from saber-toothed tigers all winter?). Civilization and its dysgenic effects have rendered human evolution basically stagnant. My worldview is definitely warped in this instance, if only because I spend a lot of (probably too much) time around very unhappy young men online. Their unhappiness is justified: evolutionary psychology is depressing as fuck (get it?).
doesn't sound like a healthy bunch to be hanging around
Quote from: SrsSam77 on January 6, 2016 12:48 PM
The plan outlined in your OP post and the article could never work in today's society because men are still the beast of burden, the author believes that the whole world is this white collar office space where her and her colleagues get around and discuss last night's sex in the city and drink coffee while the male coworkers drone around and rapingly stare at their tits. The fact is man, the human male, is still the majority force in agriculture, heavy industry, and the vast majority of service jobs exlcuding hospitality services. To kill 90 percent of all men would pull the carpet out from under the feet of modern civilization and cause it to fall into a black abyss.
If robots could somehow replace the lost manpower, the remaining 10% of men would have to be philosopher kings, adept in statecraft in order to event nuclear war as there would be no options for groundfighting because ALL THE MEN ARE GONE.
Women in this brave new world would most likely become a lower class, with the author you cited even suggesting it by stating the remaining men would have a cornucopia of special privileges afforded to them. This solution is the crux of stupid 2000s feminist work and only showcases how far the movement has fallen and how mentally deficient and vapid these people can be.
man I can't believe I seriously responded to a bait post.
literally comes down to this.
If we're gonna start killing off men then I volunteer as tribute
Quote from: SrsSam77 on January 6, 2016 12:48 PM
The plan outlined in your OP post and the article could never work in today's society because men are still the beast of burden, the author believes that the whole world is this white collar office space where her and her colleagues get around and discuss last night's sex in the city and drink coffee while the male coworkers drone around and rapingly stare at their tits. The fact is man, the human male, is still the majority force in agriculture, heavy industry, and the vast majority of service jobs exlcuding hospitality services. To kill 90 percent of all men would pull the carpet out from under the feet of modern civilization and cause it to fall into a black abyss.
If robots could somehow replace the lost manpower, the remaining 10% of men would have to be philosopher kings, adept in statecraft in order to event nuclear war as there would be no options for groundfighting because ALL THE MEN ARE GONE.
Women in this brave new world would most likely become a lower class, with the author you cited even suggesting it by stating the remaining men would have a cornucopia of special privileges afforded to them. This solution is the crux of stupid 2000s feminist work and only showcases how far the movement has fallen and how mentally deficient and vapid these people can be.
You're right in that this plan wouldn't work in today's society. As I see it, we're talking another century of technological progression at minimum. Increased automation is the only reason we can even start to think about stuff like this. There was never a plan to kill off men, only to make less of them through selective abortion and gamete selection ("designer children"). Addressing your last point, to me this is the logical conclusion of Feminism, only in this world there would be actual incentives to have a dick.
That said, I think the feminist in question vastly overestimates women's ability to get along. I think society would in fact suffer many of the same problems is does now. If the correct pressures are applied, neither sex really has more propensity for destruction. Dealing it out was just largely men's responsibility for most of history, but most female leaders have behaved accordingly.
Quote from: rtil on January 6, 2016 01:06 PM
i'm aware of this but if a society is going to artificially force men out of all work then a massive re-education has to take place. many women would potentially be forced out of jobs they like in order to fill the void.
Yes. Perhaps I overemphasized the urgency of this plan in OP and successive posts. By the time robot slaves are doing all the heavy lifting, there won't really be any need for gender roles, and thus gender-based career preference disparities will have dissolved, at least in theory.
Quote from: rtil on January 6, 2016 01:06 PM
a lot plays into who has power over who but i feel a lot of these are largely out of our control. like where you are born, the society and class you're born into, the sex you're born as. everyone's dealt a different hand and there's not much you can do but play it.
Very true.
Quote from: rtil on January 6, 2016 01:06 PM
doesn't sound like a healthy bunch to be hanging around
You're goddamn right.
I'll keep you updated if I find the data to support the woman's thesis/she delivers on it.
Quote from: Kizunami on January 6, 2016 02:46 PM
If we're gonna start killing off men then I volunteer as tribute
If only everyone could be as brave as you, Kissu.
/r/ing the screencap of the article about the women-only tv agency that went tits up due to infighting and squabbles
:EDIT:
found it
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html)
while the credibility of the site is up to debate the article is a first hand account from the owner.
on the bright side at least "gendercide" of 90% of males will make harems widespread again (but shy awkward young men will sure as heck not be having a slice of the action (https://thebackalleys.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvVVoKsm.png&hash=aaeb1f3e5931b4b25f1437ce025660baa7533ec9))
Sort of. Not really. It would be more like a reverse harem, and shy awkward men would no longer exist probably.
Quote from: Bamyasi on January 6, 2016 08:23 PM
"designer children"
Fun times ahead. (http://www.popsci.com/new-form-crispr-is-more-precise?src=SOC&dom=fb)
I also think the thesis in OP aligns pretty well with Transhumanist ideals. Women will probably be able to sprout dicks sooner than men could be bred out anyway.
how is this the most serious thread we have on the forums currently
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOoPDjiSwdo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOoPDjiSwdo)
(https://thebackalleys.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flearningpath.org%2Fcimages%2Fmultimages%2F51%2F100_percent.jpg&hash=2bb81525265a894252d49a627ecda8abde4accc8)
(https://pixabay.com/static/uploads/photo/2015/05/03/11/45/hundred-751063_960_720.jpg)
(https://thebackalleys.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maurilioamorim.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2F100_percent_effort.jpg&hash=36513a308368cf973d8c50c44d6028c4777df466)
(https://thebackalleys.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clker.com%2Fcliparts%2FP%2FY%2Fb%2FA%2FT%2Fu%2Fsatisfaction-guaranteed-100-percent-stamp-md.png&hash=4805a7a761a576d94bf17ca41c6b1d7de8425ba7)
(https://thebackalleys.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.giantbomb.com%2Fuploads%2Foriginal%2F11%2F1188202132491-1555712-252150_gerstmann100_463_super_super.jpg&hash=5c6c191b3503a11e5319cff66b7c563c4841b8d4)
(https://thebackalleys.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.giantbomb.com%2Fuploads%2Foriginal%2F11%2F118820%2F2132491-1555712-252150_gerstmann100_463_super_super.jpg&hash=7def31be4f94d5bc6e3c6a9d12cfc98387eccd23)
Quote from: Bamyasi on January 6, 2016 07:09 AM- Female bodies, in contrast, are inherently valuable as they possess a means of production (the uterus).
(https://thebackalleys.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newhealthadvisor.com%2Fimages%2F1HT00030%2Falcohol%2520and%2520depression.jpg&hash=05b64bb0a38987c4a6b961527016288dc5dedddd)
Quote from: Binary_2 on January 6, 2016 12:44 PM
Bam is this saying we all have to become trans females until only 10% of the male population remains?
[spoiler]please no[/spoiler]
(https://thebackalleys.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tenaadam.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F10%2Falchool-373x236.jpg&hash=c4bcf0dcb93fcf0160819721d776624812d4a557)
thread of dank v3 is looking pretty good yo
2016 starting strong.
THE YEAR IS 2017
EMOTION IS WEAKNESS AND DISPLAYS OF FREE THOUGHT / SPEECH ARE MET WITH TERMINATION.
NOTHING IN LIFE HAS ANY INTRINSIC VALUE BEYOND THE ABILITY TO PROPAGATE AND REPRODUCE.
YOUR VALUE IS DEFINED BY YOUR GENETIC WORTH, WEAK AND FRAIL SPECIMENS ARE TERMINATED FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY. THEIR FLAWED GENETICS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTAMINATE THE PERFECTION WE HAVE CREATED.
MEN ARE KEPT AS STOCK AND HARVESTED FOR PRECIOUS SEED.
IN VITRO FERTILIZATION AND ROBOTIC CARETAKERS ENSURE WOMEN WILL NEVER HAVE TO EXPERIENCE THE TYRANNY OF MAN EVER AGAIN.
robot waifus 2017
(https://thebackalleys.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thebackalleys.com%2Fdump%2Ffiles%2F1530%2F205K4r_kill_everyone_itt.jpg&hash=c21669f7a954ebb5c819f3c5ebf741e8009bc343)