Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 88542

The fact of the matter is, even then, and also now, women are still more important reproductively than men. In this world, it is not quite as necessary due to the immense numbers of the human species, but nevertheless, women are still the more important half.

For instance, if humanity were to undergo… say… a transformation of the short-term solutions sort. It would be sensible for 1-10% of the global population to remain male. For behavioral studies, and for reproductive purposes – a good example to remember is that it would require only one man to populate a city, while it would require an entire city of women for the same task. Women are more important because they bear the child, and thusly, they are needed in greater numbers.

If my short-term solutions were implemented, and men and boys were castrated in great numbers, it would make sense for some men to be able to be signed up through governmentally operated programs to become “Breeders” who would be exempted from castration until they were too old to continue producing viable sperm.

They would be used for sample collection based on supply-and-demand. This, along with the use of scientifically generated progeny, would be able to sustain a perfect population. Primarily female, and sufficiently - to the extent that it is necessary for sample collection - male.

Likewise, mothers or close female guardians would be advised to exempt their male children from castration if it were necessary on the basis of supply-and-demand. They could still go through with it, but they would be advised to not do so until the male grew older.

This practice of castration, Breeder usage, and sample collection would continue until it was scientifically possible to create female children entirely from the organic material of female adults. Then, the existence of men would no longer be necessary at all. Long-term solution implementation would follow.

Femitheist Divine, The New Era of Feminism 53 Comments [7/26/2012 3:39:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 57
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Chatvert

Er...one man per city would very quickly run into an incest problem.

Also, you're entirely off your nut and need to be put in a special soft room with no windows.

7/26/2012 3:53:37 AM

WWWWolf

> It would be sensible for 1-10% of the global population to remain male.

No, it wouldn't.

> it would require only one man to populate a city

...yes, but it would require more than one to give it the necessary genetic diversity.

You know, it's not exactly rocket science to realise that inbreeding isn't without its consequences, and until that is addressed, or even mentioned, the plans should be treated with all due doubt.

In larger scheme of things, if any political plan is 99% politics and 1% science, bullshit alarms should be ringing loudly. This is no exception.

7/26/2012 4:05:30 AM

gravematter

Sounds like a really bad dystopian Sci-Fi novel. Also a recipe for genetic disaster. Also, you are psychotic. Did you scrawl this on a wall in your own excrement?

7/26/2012 4:07:51 AM

N. De Plume

Does the phrase, “Shallow Gene Pool” mean anything to you?

No? I thought not.

7/26/2012 4:15:40 AM

akg41470

You really really hate men a whole awful lot, don't you?

7/26/2012 4:21:21 AM

Reynardine

Again, "ladies", permit me to introduce Doug Wilson. Now, let me leave you alone to play together.

7/26/2012 4:32:00 AM

anevilmeme

Your castration fantasies aside genetics and inbreeding would be a serious issue.


7/26/2012 4:51:45 AM

Leighton Buzzard

... and who would you blame for fucking up the world then, eh?

7/26/2012 5:13:40 AM

Mister Spak

" until it was scientifically possible to create female children entirely from the organic material of female adults."

Until there is a black swan event that makes that technology unavailable. Then you become extinct, while the hidden pockets of male rebellion inherit the earth with their primitive reproduction procedure.


7/26/2012 5:27:52 AM

dionysus

Old people are pretty useless reproductively. Does that mean we need to kill off all old people in the long term and treat them as second class citizens in the short term? Also, yes, one man can populate a city, technically. But are you sure you want a city full of siblings fucking each other?

7/26/2012 6:00:22 AM

dionysus

Oops, accidentally pressed refresh and double posted.

7/26/2012 6:01:51 AM

Stonespiral

I would read the book. Because that's all this is going to be.. fiction.

7/26/2012 6:12:27 AM



You don't know a thing about genetics, obviously.

7/26/2012 6:18:24 AM

fishtank

GENE POOL.

Fucking hell.

7/26/2012 6:29:17 AM

FinalArbiterOfMyMorality

You, darling, are insane. That is all.

7/26/2012 7:16:38 AM

Titania

Sounds like a fucked up combintion of Brave New World and a male version of The Handmaids Tale. Since we're in fantasy land, as a particular Lilliputian oft said, "It'll never work."

7/26/2012 7:16:48 AM

HappyGazpacho

The misandry in that blog could fill Lake Michigan.

7/26/2012 7:20:22 AM

HappyGazpacho

Also, someone ought to link her to the love-shy forums.

7/26/2012 7:21:15 AM

freako104

Are you aware that one man populating a city would lead to inbreeding?

7/26/2012 7:51:40 AM

Ebon

Genetics and basic morality says no.

7/26/2012 8:13:26 AM

Doubting Thomas

Well aren't you just a ray of sunshine?

I guess you totally forgot to take into consideration the problem of inbreeding.

I'm also guessing that you probably think that involuntary hysterectomies would be cruel and inhumane.

7/26/2012 8:45:11 AM



Women aren't exactly 'more important'. Women just take 9 months to reproduce, and men conclude their part in affairs fairly quickly. Thus, less men are neccessary to impregnate an equal number of women.

As for the rest: raving lunacy.

7/26/2012 9:10:57 AM

Berny

What a wonderful dystopian world you envision for humanity. Personally, I would kill anyone who came near my package to cut it off, assuming my wife didn't beat me to them first.
You really should seek help for your multiple issues.

7/26/2012 9:26:59 AM



a woman does not need her labia, vagina, clitoris or breasts to be able to have children.

Please report to the nearest hospital to have your organs removed.


7/26/2012 9:51:51 AM

J. James

This just goes to show that there is a polar opposite to absolutely everything in the world. Loveshy and TNEOF, you complete each other.

7/26/2012 10:10:07 AM
1 2 3