Feminist GENUINELY (not trolling) calls 4 (nonviolent) reduction of male pop to 10% via eugenics. Why is she a professor & founder of Gender Programs at unis? This is like giving tenure to a Nazi. Her manifesto is also origin of "future is female". Using that phrase is like using slogans from Hitler

2020-05-05T18:30:39+00:00

I mean, as long as I live I like those ratios, but I'm good lol

FluffyCheeseStick · 2020-05-11T03:11:26+00:00

That’s called death threats.

S-p-o-o-k-n-t · 2020-05-18T01:13:58+00:00

basically she desires fascism on a larger scale than ever in history

KillhappyJenn · 2020-05-06T05:37:10+00:00

Your title's pretty misleading. She hasn't taught in nearly thirty years.

MournWillow · 2020-05-22T07:32:09+00:00

So let’s do some quick math here:

We have a civilization that follows this standard split, 90/10, and is in favor of females. Let’s then say this civilization is 1000 members total, meaning 900 women, 100 men. Assuming this civilization lives with the same rules we do in our currently active civilization, meaning 1:1 marriage/mating groups. That means only 100 females would become pregnant and reproduce. Now, let’s assume that the gender ratio is split perfectly 50/50, meaning 50 boys are born, and 50 girls are born. This brings the total of our civilization up to 1100 (this is discounting the fact of multiple pregnancies being possible, and multiple children per birth, I.e twins, triplets, etc) and suddenly our generational population total is 13% men and 87% women. Push forward and say every year this same pattern occurs in mated pairs, with 10 persons dying due to varied causes. After 3 years and no mated male deaths, the population would increase by 150 men, but would only gain 120. This brings our civilization up to 250 males and the women from the original 950, up to only 1070. Total being 1320, and I don’t know about the math beyond this as I’ve ignore so many variables up to this point, but 250/1320 isn’t 10%, but rather almost 20%. That’s a 10% increase in four years, and that’s only because I ignored the random variance in death to exclude males from dying, simply to keep things neat and to prove a point. Without external inputs: death to men, killing of male fetuses, multiple babies per pregnancy, multiple mates per male, etc; this system would tend towards equilibrium or it will die.

Or we have crazy ass mutations due to incest because “lol, no men to get pregnant with so let’s use our children boys as speed donors once they reach 11-12 to keep our society going, it’s okay if you fuck your mom and sister and cousin and grandma, just as long as they get pregananant and further our way of life.” Women cannot life in an enclosed society without men, and men cannot live without women in the same system. It just won’t work. Skew the lines and all you’ve done is potentially lead humanity to extinction or potentially forcing humanity to evolve just so a stupid point is made that one gender is better than another.

Thanks for coming to my TedTalk about civilizations.

VileInsidias · 2020-06-16T21:57:01+00:00

Future is female. Magic is might.

This women is essentially Voldemort.

ghetterking · 2020-05-05T14:41:11+00:00

that's not even a problem by itself in my eyes, if only that dumb fuck didnt try to accomplish that with medieval tools.

how about you INCREASE the percentage of females to 90%?

now we're talking! noone has to die (except fetuses maybe), men get a pool of pussy to drown in, feminists get the power in the governments and companies they so crave and boom world peace amirite

no but seriously, if she advocated for mothers mostly giving birth to girls i'd have no problem with that. certainly less so than current day asians and others who abort their xx chromosomed fetuses

ps: and yes i do realise that this would increase world population to 35G humans, but first of all that's an entirely different problem and we should discuss that somewhere else and more importantly i think overpopultion is not a problem, never has been and only will be once we reach entire different sounding numbers than billions.

pps: the real problem is a lack of resources, production and distribution

Comments