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.