Free Markets, Free People

The left’s “new” idea

I don’t think anyone would attempt to persuade us that “feminism” is a product of the right.  In fact, most feminists would argue that feminism is necessary because of the right … and men, of course.  Feminism began on the left as a fairly benignly defined movement: “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.”

Of course, that didn’t last long and feminism evolved and began characterizing women as victims – victims of men, the “system”, the “patriarchy, etc. because, well, men controlled everything (the fact that technology had advanced to a point that women were more able to participate in a vast number of more areas of life than previously, and that as such, the culture needed to go through a natural evolutionary cycle to adapt to that apparently never occurred to them) and that was bad.  And as it built up the cult of victimhood and focused on men – well, except for Bill Clinton or any other useful man on the left – it became more militant and radical.  Men went from being partners to necessary evils to just plain evil.  Stereotypes of the “typical male” became etched in the concrete of their dogma as “the truth”.  “All sex is rape” and “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” became popular catch phrases that were representative of their developing creed as the movement morphed from one to gain equal rights to one that essentially declared war on men.  It wasn’t about equality anymore, it was about rejection of men and everything they stood for.  Men, to radical feminists, were the problem … and although never said, it was clear most of the radical feminists would be quite happy if men were essentially eliminated.

Well rejoice radfems, one of your ilk has spoken what you have dared not say outloud.  The reason you’ve not said it becomes clear when you realize the natural end state of radical feminism and how it has to be achieved, at least according to this fembot.  She outlines the “utopian” vision of the radical feminist movement – and trust me there’s nothing about equality involved.  Instead it is filled with ignorance – one which imagines the “state” as the ultimate tool necessary for radfems to change the world into what this silly woman imagines would be a utopia.  What is interesting to note is what would have to happen for this “utopia” to evolve.  Yes, I know it is extraordinarily far-fetched and absurd, but then we can point to many current and past ideologies – all pointed at their own brand of “utopia” – that somehow gained credence and backing to establish itself, much to the detriment of those who were identified as “enemies” of the ideology.

Anyway the point is this particular nonsense is a good example of how leftist ideologies usually imagine their ascendence.  It is through the state and their control of it.  The state is their tool, their ideology is the weapon and the individual – well individuals don’t exist for these ideologies.  They become nothing more than pawns to be used as necessary for the “good of society” and the collective as a whole.

What you’ll read will seem radical as hell, which is why it is so perfect for the point – you don’t have to explain subtlety here – there is none.  It is pure elitist power and abuse wrapped up in what this person hopes is a benign description that shows those who can read between the lines what extent and what horrors radicals on the left would set in motion to accomplish their “utopia”:

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.

The first thing to notice in this word salad is she claims not to want to do anything via a selective slaughter or anything. How nice.  Stereotypical men will kill themselves off and aid in their extermination.  Also, note the characterization of those men who are left (if you’re confused, she wants only 1 to 10% men and 90 to 99% women as the “proper ratio) as “more valuable” and that the “quality of life” would improve.

Yup, and they said the Jews were going to work camps where they’d be properly looked after in 1939, didn’t they? “Arbeit macht frei”!   This is all about the “selling” of the idea and easing the victims of the ideology into the cattle cars without a disturbance.

She says the way to ensure the ratio is reached and maintained is through genetic manipulation and abortion.  Any guess as to what would manage and mandate that process?

Another role for the state?

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.

Vastly superior because, well you know, the self-appointed elite certainly have been successful creating “vastly superior” societies in the past, haven’t they?

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.

She knows this is true because, well, because it is obvious she knows so much about men … not.  Stereotypically all men want is “sex, beer and a TV”.  Man has never striven for anything else and would obviously be content to be penned up and have their needs serviced.  History is bereft of examples of men striving for or wanting anything more.   No mention, of course, of what the “state” would do to those men who chafe at these restrictions and want more out of life.  Of course since they are reduced to a life of nothing more that of a stud horse, it is obvious that their place in any human society is substantially below that of the women in that society.  I.e. they’re the “harem” for the women who run the world.

Are you ready for the dismissal of the individual and the one-size-fits-all solution so common to these leftist dream-worlds?

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.

Kind of depressing?  It is staggeringly stupid not to mention incredibly oppressive.  And how about the redefinition of the “purpose of living”?  That’s all?  That’s all there is?  Well, except for the elite (among which she would likely place herself).  That’s not the sole purpose of their being – they live to control you and achieve “utopia” … their utopia.  You drones just need to fall in line and procreate.

And what about the “family” in this matriarchal wonder world:

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.

It takes a village, baby.  A female village.  No males allowed – well except those allowed to be born to repopulate the stud farm and they’ll be completely indoctrinated by the time they reach puberty.  Perfect girls in state-owned breeding centers … what more could you ask for?

Now you’re probably saying that this is so far fetched that it would never stand a chance of ever being established or condoned.  Why even waste time on it?

Well, I’d simply point you toward Nazism of the past century and say, “BS”.  It is the same plan with a twist.  Nazis also wanted a perfect society (they just wanted “Aryans”, not just women), they too believed everyone belonged to the state, they also pushed selective “breeding” (rewarding Aryan couples for having children and euthanizing the retarded and deformed), and through their Hitler Youth program, the state took on the total indoctrination of the youth for it’s own purposes (rat on your folks, get a reward).  They even had a program to weed out the undesirable from society.  In this woman’s case, it is men.  Then it was Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, slavs and political enemies.  So yeah, this is a rehash of the Nazi “utopia” with a twist. Instead of the “final solution” we get the “90% solution”.

 No one said the left was original.  And for the most part, it may be horrifically ignorant of history.  But it is persistent.  And that is the danger of people like this.  You never know when the events of history will converge as they did in Germany so many decades ago, to make an ideology seem “fresh” and “good” again.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

41 Responses to The left’s “new” idea

  • Sure sweetie, we’ll put your country right next to the perfect Communism country designed by Karl Marx.

  • This is the radical fringe of feminism, a point of view which most self-described feminists would distance themselves from as far as possible. Most feminists I know are married (to men – most of them at least), have children, and simply believe that women and men should have equal opportunity. Some would say that society still downplays so-called feminist traits (e.g., strength, logic and power trump love, empathy and kindness in our politics and social life), but they’d link that to sociology more than biology. It’s too bad you have people out there who go to such extremes that they make it easy for some to dismiss the whole idea. It’s like ISIS and Islam, or the Westboro Baptist Church and Christianity.

    • Well, except that Westboro isn’t a nation-state with its own army, with a billion dollars and rising, its own oil wells, control of water supplies to millions, and support from all over the world.

      Other than that…

      You are SUCH a moron.

      • Hey, it’s hard to draw the parallel’s what with the Christian conquering armies sorta petering out completely back 300 or 400 years ago.

        So, you know, conquering Syria, Iraq, slaughtering infidels, killing men, kidnapping their women and turning them into sex slave wives, it’s the same as, uh, picketing Robin Williams Funeral!
        exactly, almost.

        • The Westboro morons are a bunch of Democrats BTW.

          • And their activities are a scam to get lawsuit money.

            ISIS, despite its horrors, offers people are very strict, pure form of religious rule.

            To some that is very appealing.

          • There are large swaths of society, almost every society, that are perfectly happy being given narrow guidelines and being told what to do in exchange for being taken care of.

            If there weren’t you could never form an effective army or fight and win a war.

          • Look at all the pictures of Westboro members holding up the severed heads of their victims!!!

            It is the SAME THING as ISIS! There is no difference between picketing and murdering dozens of people at a time.

            No difference.

          • Wait, except when the picketers are Occupy or they are protesting the shooting of a black person, or they are union members, or PETA, or stuff like that.

            Other than such wise leftists, anyone who pickets is exactly equivalent to mass murdering religious fanatics.

    • “This is the radical fringe of feminism…”

      I guess you didn’t see the multiple times McQ mentioned that, otherwise you probably wouldn’t have felt the need to repeat it. On the other hand, some would say this is just more of your ponderously pompous prattle, full of sound and whining, and signifying nothing.

    • Lenin was a fringe wacko, too. Pol Pot, too.

      While its tempting to ignore these people, sometimes it makes sense to push-back a bit.

  • “The purpose of living is merely to persist and perpetuate our species.”

    Well, I guess that is about all you really need to know about this carlin (old Scots for a witch). What a brave new world she imagines.

    A typical Collectivist notion.

  • I wonder if she got these ideas from her mom, possibly influenced by 70’s television….

    Buck Rogers in the 25th century – Planet of the Amazon women.
    1974 move “Planet Earth”
    Star Trek original series – Mudd’s Women.

  • The father of her child must have been a real winner .

    • This may be why she thinks putting 90% of males in the ground is a good idea.

      She should settle for slashing his tires, smashing his headlights and carving her name in his leather seat covers.

      The rest of us didn’t have anything to do with her hissy fit.

  • You know, the scary part of this radical feminism stuff is that there probably is nobody at the DOJ Civil Rights division or the SPLC who would see anything wrong with this vision.
    On the other hand, you you were to juxtaposition men and women in this vision, the entire group would be on the terrorism watch list.

  • “Shut up and bake me a pie”

    • ….or a more fun alternative from “Aqua Teen Hungerforce” : “Fellate me while I eat this expensive ham”

      • Ah yes, Master Shake would be just the one to deal with this!
        They’d be the perfect polar couple.

  • Some of the most aggressive, vicious people iv’e ever met were female. Female insects do all the stinging and biting in the wild, so this unfounded notion the world will be safer in female control is not simply wishful thinking, it flies in the face of reality.

    • traditionally it was when the village warriors turned you over to the village women that you knew you were in for a really miserable time before you finally and thankfully died.

  • Wait, so I don’t have to work.

    I have 9:1 ratio at parties.

    Are we sure this is a bad idea?

    Just genetically engineer women to birth 9/1 females and no one gets “killed.”

    I bet this utopian society lasts about 30 minutes though.

    • Hater…

    • Because somewhere in the hills and mountains of backward WhatevahStan they’re exposing or drowning daughters at birth so they can focus on producing many fine sons.

      Guess where they’re going to take their spiffy army equipped with spiffy aggressive male dominated society weapons when they get enough fine sons.

      Guess who’s probably going to lose that war.

      Guess what’s going to happen when they do.

  • Left out of the plan: forcing men to invent robots to do mans’ work. A female-only world is like bands of primitive tribal people driving out the Westerners and taking over oil fields. It’s only a matter of time until everything falls into utter disrepair.


  • 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.

    Or, far more likely, a scarce resource becomes a highly sought after and jealously guarded asset. Powerful women will keep the men and deny reproduction to the lesser girls. These breeding men will have no choice in the matter. In other words, kind of like what you get with old-fashioned harems full of women… the powerful men reproduce their dynasties and the poor men are shunted off into the wars and effective slavery. Amazing how utopians seem to think that their specific denial of human nature will somehow not result in completely unintended and horrible consequences.

    • No no no! This time it will work out, you see! This time it will be done right. And besides, omelets, eggs, you know.

      • Allusions to breaking eggs on a thread about womyn must be sexist, shirley?

        • Only when made by you brutishly ignorant penis-bearers. I, as one of the Holy Enlightened Homogametics, am allowed to make such allusions with total impunity. La di dah.

          And don’t call me shirley 😉

        • No it won’t be sexist because women can talk about that stuff, they own it!
          And stop calling her Shirley.

          • Thank you, A. When the purges begin, I’ll be happy to put you and DocD in my attic.

            That sounded way less kinky in my head.

        • Mmmmm…. Eggs…bacon…omelets….
          Honey…!!! Where’s lunch…??? Oh, and how ’bout some “afternoon delight”?

  • From another equally creepy perspective entirely, the movie (or novella) – “A boy and his Dog”.