The Femitheist is a 22-year-old criminology student with a three-year-old. One angry day in 2012 she took to the Internet to outline the brutal concept of International Castration Day. After posting it on YouTube she stepped out for a coffee. Returning home a few hours later, she found that all gnashing male hell had broken loose.
Her argument was that only through the reduction of the male population to between 1 and 10 percent of their current number we can approach “true equality”.
While she now derides International Castration day as silly, the internet had met The Femitheist. Two years later she is an emergent cult leader, a ball-stepping villainess, or clear-thinking realist—depending who you ask. Today she continues to support the reduction of the male population and generally courts outrage and devotion through her website and YouTube channel. She’s also 200 pages into what she’s hoping will be her 700 page manifesto outlining the philosophy of Femitheism. It’s tentatively titled The Ratio.
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? Dou 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.
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.
Christina Hoff Sommers is author of the new edition of the The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men. You can hear Sommers Thursday night in Washington, D.C., during adebate hashing out whether there is a war on women ongoing or if it’s really on men. The debate will be moderated by Jonah Goldberg and include Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers. Sommers talks with National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez.
KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: What’s the war on boys?
CHRISTINA HOFF SOMMERS: It’s more like a war of attrition. No one wakes up in the morning thinking, “What horrible thing can I do to boys today?” But boys and young men have been massively neglected. Women in the U.S. today earn 62 percent of associate’s degrees, 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 60 percent of master’s degrees, and 52 percent of doctorates. When an education-policy analyst looked at current trends in higher education he quipped, only half in jest, “The last male will graduate from college in 2068.”
There was an immense and much-celebrated effort to strengthen girls in areas where they languished behind boys. The Title IX anti-discrimination law has been used to close the sports gap. In the mid-Nineties, Congress passed the Gender Equity Act, categorizing girls as an “under-served population” on par with other discriminated-against minorities. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to improve girls’ achievement in sports, math, and science. Today, it is boys who need help. But so far Congress and the Department of Education have looked the other way.
LOPEZ: This has been a theme of yours for a while. Has it gotten better or worse?
SOMMERS: Simon & Schuster asked me to update and revise the 2000 edition of The War Against Boys precisely because the plight of boys is worsening. A recentworking paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research documents a remarkable trend among high-achieving students: In the 1980s, nearly the same number of top male and female high-school students said they planned to pursue a postgraduate degree. By the 2000s, 27 percent of girls expressed that ambition, compared with 16 percent of boys. But it’s the declining social and educational prospects of working-class and poor white, Latino, and African-American young men that is most dismaying. A 2011 Brookings Institution study describes how millions of poorly educated young men have been “unhitched from the engine of growth.” As the United States moves toward a knowledge-based economy, school achievement has become the cornerstone of lifelong success. Young women are adapting; young men are not.
LOPEZ: Why is it so much more of a challenge to educate boys than girls? What are we doing wrong?
SOMMERS: Let’s face it, boys are different from girls. As a group, boys are noisy, rowdy, and hard to manage. Many are messy and disorganized, and won’t sit still. They tend to like action, risk, and competition. When researchers asked a sample of boys why they did not spend a lot of time talking about their problems, most of them said it was “weird” and a waste of time.
Today’s classrooms tend to be feelings-centered, risk-averse, competition-free, and sedentary. As early as pre-school and kindergarten, boys can be punished for behaving like boys. The characteristic play of young males is “rough-and-tumble” play. There is no known society where little boys fail to evince this behavior (girls do it too, but far less). In many schools, rough –and-tumble play is no longer tolerated. Well-meaning but intolerant adults are insisting “tug of war” be changed to “tug of peace”; games such as tag are being replaced with “circle of friends” — in which no one is ever out. Boys as young as five or six can be suspended for playing cops and robbers. Our schools have become hostile environments for most boys.
LOPEZ: What is the solution to the boy gap, and why aren’t our schools addressing it?
SOMMERS: For one thing, we can follow the example of the British, the Canadians, and the Australians. They have openly addressed the problem of male underachievement. They are experimenting with programs to help them become more organized, focused, and engaged. These include more boy-friendly reading assignments (science fiction, fantasy, sports, espionage, battles); more recess time (where boys can engage in rough-and-tumble play as a respite from classroom routine); campaigns to encourage male literacy; more single-sex classes; and more male teachers (and female teachers interested in the pedagogical challenges boys pose). A few years ago, the Australian government launched a campaign called “Success for Boys.” This program provided grants to 1,600 schools to incorporate boy-friendly methods into their daily practice.
A “Success for Boys” campaign would face furious opposition in the U.S. Congress. Legislators would receive an avalanche of protesting faxes, e-mails, petitions, and phone calls from women’s groups accusing them of taking part in a “backlash” maneuver against women and girls. In the U.S., a network of women’s groups works ceaselessly to protect and promote what it sees as female interests. But there is no counterpart working for boys — they are on their own.
LOPEZ: What are the political implications of the current plight of boys?
SOMMERS: In light of the boy crisis, both liberals and conservatives may have to reconsider some prized assumptions about the source of our national woes. Liberals routinely lament “the feminization of poverty” and look to the government for more generous polices to help millions of struggling single mothers. Conservatives deplore the decline of the family and point to the need to restore basic values. But, as a growing body of evidence makes clear, both female poverty and family decline are directly connected to the falling fortunes of young men.
— Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. A revised and updated edition of her bestselling book, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Polices Are Harming Our Young Men, has just been published. Follow her @CHSommers.
There is no war on women: It’s boys who are in trouble
BY RICHARD WHITMIRE AND RISHAWN BIDDLE / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
We have no way of knowing who will win the “war on women” political debate now topping broadcasts and newspaper pages. But with great certainty, we can identify the losers in this battle: boys.
Contrary to what you hear in the political campaign broadsides, females are actually doing pretty well. In our elementary, middle and high schools, they earn the best grades, win most of the academic prizes, get suspended less and graduate at very high rates. That success helps explain why women currently dominate higher education, with many college campuses spilling over the 60% female threshold.
Workforce trends favoring women continue to rain down, with record numbers of women in the workforce. Well-educated women living in large cities out-earn their male counterparts. Their biggest challenge: finding equally educated males to marry.
But that’s not what you’ll hear from either President Obama or Mitt Romney.
Earlier this month, the White House released a “special report” on women in the economy, which promoted “an economy that’s built to last for America’s women.”
Most Presidents try to keep their children out of the public debate, but in this case, Obama made an exception: “As a father, one of the highlights of my day is asking my daughters about theirs. Their hopes and their futures are what drive me every day I step into the Oval Office.”
Obama, of all people, knows that boys, not girls (especially his two daughters attending the elite Sidwell Friends School) are the ones in trouble. There is no way he is unaware of the alarming social indicators we see among African-American males.
But we should not be surprised by the President’s opportunism. Obama won the White House with 8 million more female votes than male votes. If he can’t re-create that same gender vote cushion, he’s toast.
As for Romney, his latest push is to claim most of the jobs lost during the Obama years were female-held positions. So? Not only is workforce participation by females pushing all-time highs, but the striking number of well-educated females hovering just outside the labor market means that number may go even higher.
By contrast, male employment rates among those 25-and-older have been in steady decline.
Again, a politician has his reasons for glossing over the more important gender trends. Romney’s numbers among female voters look abysmal, especially among college-educated white women.
Here’s why we need politicians to get past the pandering and posturing and propose solutions for the group truly in trouble: Boys account for three out of every five high school students who drop out of school. Boys make up 67% of the 5.8 million kids relegated to special education programs. The likelihood of any boy in special education graduating by age 21 is bleak.
Boys, regardless of race, ethnicity or economic class, are also more likely to struggle in reading. Forty percent of Asian fourth-grade boys who qualified for free or reduced lunch were functionally illiterate versus 32% of their female peers, while 37% of fourth-grade black boys who didn’t qualify for free or reduced lunch read at “below basic” proficiency, versus 26% of their female peers.
Young male high school dropouts are at least five times as likely to land in prison by adulthood than peers who graduate, according to Princeton University researcher Bruce Western, in part because boys who struggle in reading in first grade begin acting out and become discipline problems. They are also less likely to marry by the time they reach middle age because women with higher earnings don’t consider them marriage material. They are also more likely to have children out of wedlock, perpetuating the social ills that plague low-income black, white and Latino communities.
Educational and political leaders have long known the consequences of these boy troubles, yet have done little to address illiteracy and the other underlying factors.
Both Obama and Romney have put forth visions of a better educated, more competitive America. As long as the “war on women” dominates the political discourse — and the battle for the future of boys is ignored — those visions will remain on hold.