A Holocaust of Males

I put this in the New World Order section, because I believe the NWO plays a big part in this topic. Specifically, radical feminist ideology. I won't get into that right now though, that's another topic.

I've been seeing a lot of posts lately - about men being a plague to this earth, and that the male population must be reduced or "exterminated" in order to save the Earth and/ or the human race from certain doom. How many people agree with any of the above?

Would you support a soft kill, or violent kill? Just white men? How much of the male population would you get rid of? Were your views created or catalyzed by the movie Avatar in any way?

EDIT: I would like to a point out, a holocaust of all males is technically possible now with the introduction of artificial sperm. www.cbsnews.com...

[edit on 19-3-2010 by sliceNodice]

reply to post by sliceNodice


Seemed to have noticed very similar posts also.. and your name is ironicly linked to castration lol.

I don't think it's at all possible, too many men hold positions of power, work labor jobs (not that women can't they just don't want to for the most part) and I really can't see the offspring of artficially created children being able to produce their own offspring.

Although I'm all for having the female population massively outweigh the males I can't see it happening

And who would kill us off? I doubt there would be women rounding men up for mass executions, I've never hit a woman in my life but if they were trying to wipe us out I'd kick their asses!


[edit on 19-3-2010 by ItsallCrazy]

reply to post by sliceNodice


Then who will the Women get to kill bugs, or mow the lawn? Women with out Man is a goofy idea, just like Men without Women is....

[edit on 19-3-2010 by poedxsoldiervet]

reply to post by sliceNodice


Do you mind linking some of the threads that espouse the gendercide ( Is that a word?). I come to ATS everyday and haven't seen any threads like that.

What would the point be of getting rid of every man? Don't men hold MOST of the power in our world? Why would they want to get rid of themselves?

I consider myself a feminist, I believe women should have all the same opportunites that men have. Up to and including frontline combat if they so choose to.

It's about choice, historically women had no choice and in some places they still don't. Whether the choice is to be mother and stay at home or be in a career, it should be a respected and accepted choice.

But for there to be no men? No Fathers? No brothers, no man to complete my life ( my man does)? That world sounds horrible!

reply to post by Merigold


Most of the posts I believe he's referring to are on the 'Articifical sperm' thread, give it a quick go in the search bar and it'll probably be the first hit.

It was a good thread but there was a few fanatical feminists (women can be extremists too ) who were saying, all war is men's fault, all crime is men's fault blah blah blah.

[edit on 19-3-2010 by ItsallCrazy]

reply to post by sliceNodice


POIDT (Pictures or it didn't happen.)
Please show me these threads or posts.

I've seen a few denigrating females, but never seen one suggesting we should exterminate men.
Are you sure this is not some weird fantasy of yours?

Many women are attracted to men, some even fall in love with them.
And when we have babies, they are more likely to be male than female.

Despite being a radical feminist myself, I managed to conquer the overwhelming urges, embedded in my subconscious by the NWO, to throw my new-born potential rapists under the nearest bus. (I hear you're meant to cuddle the baby and bury the placenta under a lemon tree, but if it's one of these deviants with dangly bits, shouldn't it be the other way round?)
In fact I haven't even drowned my male cat . . . yet. (- But if he claws me once more he'll get no more unhomogenised biodynamic milk, for a day or two.)

- I hope the reader understands sarcasm.

I have seen many posts advocating lowering the world's population, but none of these have been aimed at men. In fact, reading between the lines, I suspect many would be happy to say, "women and children first," in this regard.


By the way, did you see Avatar?
There was no anti-male message in that. It was about behaviour, not gender, and the hero was a male.

If you consider the movie's message, that we shouldn't rape foreign lands and destroy their civilisation, to be anti-male, then you have a pretty twisted idea of males yourself.







[edit on 19/3/10 by Kailassa]

reply to post by sliceNodice

I think that one should make a distinction between being "male" (biologically male) and the changing constructs of "masculinity".
If "male" means an aggressive dominator over women, and colonized peoples or even the environment, then yes, we have changed much, and even religious Western concepts of masculinity have become less violent and hurtful since the 1970-1980s.
However, the construct of masculinity can still change much for the better.
When hardcore extremists talk about wiping out "biological men" they lose me completely, and I think it is them that need help to overcome their prejudices in such cases.

However, in global masculinity studies it becomes clear that male identity is expected to change, but yet female/liberal attitudes towards men do not. Men are still exclusive battle "canon fodder", and are expected to make all kinds of sacrifices that women do not.
Men still perform most of the dirtiest, most dangerous and traumatic work - affrimative action should place more women into positions like garbage men or scaffold workers, and more men should be made secretaries until the amounts are 50/50%. This will also equal out the death rates between the genders in the NWO system, since currently the male life expectancy is 10-20 years less than that of women! Whatever the role of biology, that alone is indicative of an oppressed male gender.
Equality is not "a room of one's own" for one gender, and a "Vietnam body bag" for the male gender. Society wants equality, but still pushes men into stereotypical positions where they must sacrifice themselves for both male and female politics.

Originally posted by ItsallCrazy
It was a good thread but there was a few fanatical feminists (women can be extremists too

) who were saying, all war is men's fault, all crime is men's fault blah blah blah.

A woman is not a true feminist if she doesn't believe women can do everything men can do, whether it's war, crime, or yellow writing in the snow.

Ok, the yellow writing in the snow is difficult, but as a lactating mother with violent let-downs I wrote in white all over a black-suited guy in a supermarket. Now show me the man who can do that!

Even in business we are the equals to men. Sure, as we pee in cubicles, we don't have the business meetings in the loo that enable men to make contacts, but we can wear 3' wide shoulder pads and just knock all the guys out of our way.

reply to post by Kailassa

I agree with the wider sentiments in the post. Women certainly can perform whatever tasks were once exclusively segregated to men. However, I would be careful about making it seem as if women should aspire to dated "masculine roles". Isn't that recycling masculine stereotypes of "penis envy" and simple role-swapping, instead of role adaption? Isn't it making the sexist roles desirable instead of non-sexism?

Well the situation varies, and the fact is that outside ivory towers and academia most people are happy with males/females being assigned roles. In fact most people probably still believe that gender roles are naturalistically determined by an infant's genitalia.

Of course "gender=nature" is itself a masculine construct, that viewed nature as dead, exploitable and static. In SA we had a "female" athlete called Caster Semenya who had internal testes, and such cases prove that gender is fluid and cultural.
As such I would propose that the entire gender set up is recognized as phoney and conditioned constructionism, and that aspiring to certain roles is not a viable solution towards equality.

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by sliceNodice

 

Then who will the Women get to kill bugs, or mow the lawn?

[edit on 19-3-2010 by poedxsoldiervet]

In all fairness,
comments like this kind of provokes radicalism.

However, I do not condone radicalism of any kind its best for people to keep in mind there are 'out there' and 'bad eggs' in every group of people.

The sperm synthesis I thought was old news?

I haven't witnessed any Anti-Male messaging in the movie Avatar.
If I could take a guess ... I am guessing you did not like the comparison between the alien 'leading lady' and her crippled 'leading man' since it portrayed him to be weaker... than a fictional alien species that is about twice the height of a human...

Anyway, I do not believe a male holocaust will occur due to people frowning on such ideas now and everything is about apperance.

What I would look for is you and every male sharing your water supply or even food supply becoming sterile and you needing to get a liscense to reproduce via this sythesized sperm.

i would be terribly disappointed it someone tried to get rid of men! i love men! lol and i love masculine men even more. i really dislike the "feminization" of men. i love that men are stronger and more dominant

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by sliceNodice

 

I think that one should make a distinction between being "male" (biologically male) and the changing constructs of "masculinity".
If "male" means an aggressive dominator over women, and colonized peoples or even the environment, then yes, we have changed much, and even religious Western concepts of masculinity have become less violent and hurtful since the 1970-1980s.
However, the construct of masculinity can still change much for the better.

I do like the fact that expectations for both sexes are starting to loosen up.
We are so much more than just male or female, and should be able to express out true natures without so much stereotyping. This threatens some males who want a stereotyped environment, but it also means men are less likely to have to be the sole bread-winner, and men who are not so macho can more easily fit in.

When hardcore extremists talk about wiping out "biological men" they lose me completely, and I think it is them that need help to overcome their prejudices in such cases.

Agreed, that attitude is just sick.

However the nearest thing I've seen to it was in a Melbourne suburb, where a group of macho guys were busily trying to exterminate gay males, by dropping them off St Kilda Pier. - while police carefully looked in the other direction.
I wonder where the author of this thread would have stood in that situation.

However, in global masculinity studies it becomes clear that male identity is expected to change, but yet female/liberal attitudes towards men do not. Men are still exclusive battle "canon fodder", and are expected to make all kinds of sacrifices that women do not.

There are a lot of women trying to put a stop to wars to protect males from being cannon fodder. There are others fighting for the right to fight on the front lines, beside the men. And in WWII, despite women not fighting on the front lines, their jobs as nurses and flak gun operators meant many were killed in the line of duty.

What other sacrifices do you mean? I promise you, as a single mother with handicapped children, I've sacrificed opportunities, I've sacrificed my social life, I've lived most of my life with no disposable income, unable to afford shoes, glasses or even a mattress at first, having to buy underwear from a second hand shop and scavenge for food, and hardly sleeping for years because a chronically ill child needed to be watched at night.

I don't want sympathy, I'm not exceptional. I'm just one of many women who've lived this very female type of sacrifice.

Of course, as a Liberal (as in left-wing) mother of wonderful sons, the idea of young men being killed in a war they are too naive to understand horrifies me.

Men still perform most of the dirtiest, most dangerous and traumatic work - affrimative action should place more women into positions like garbage men or scaffold workers, and more men should be made secretaries until the amounts are 50/50%. This will also equal out the death rates between the genders in the NWO system, since currently the male life expectancy is 10-20 years less than that of women! Whatever the role of biology, that alone is indicative of an oppressed male gender.
Equality is not "a room of one's own" for one gender, and a "Vietnam body bag" for the male gender. Society wants equality, but still pushes men into stereotypical positions where they must sacrifice themselves for both male and female politics.

More men used to be secretaries. It was the new typewriters and increased typing speeds that pushed them out of that profession. Few could keep up.

A woman wanting to be a garbo will be just laughed at when she applies for a job at the council. Not only do garbos have to be fit and strong, but they have to be one of a pretty rough-talking crew. And some people are still under the impression that swear words make female ears bleed.

Scaffold workers also have to be very strong. And there's no denying that the average man is quite a bit stronger than the average woman.

If a man wants to keep out of these professions, what's to stop him, these days, working somewhere more to his tastes? However don't bank on a more gentle job necessarily being safer. With all the chemicals used in hair-dressing, for example, I wouldn't be surprised if that job kills more people than scaffold work.



The changing position of women in society has meant that men are less stereotyped, and women are more likely to be working with them, sharing their dangers. There are many women working on building sites and in abattoirs, for instance, in Australia. It has also meant that a woman doing draughting is now called a draughtsman, and paid the same wage as the men working on her level, unlike the days when I was labelled a "tracer", and paid 1/4 the income of the surrounding males, despite doing more advanced work than they could do.


Regarding life expectancy, if you want these evened out we'll need to force women to drink and smoke as much as men do and to eat the same diet.

On an average women eat less meat and more vegetables than men and have healthier lifestyles. Just look in the average Aussie pub and you'll see a horde of men men committing slow, communal suicide.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Kailassa

 

I agree with the wider sentiments in the post. Women certainly can perform whatever tasks were once exclusively segregated to men. However, I would be careful about making it seem as if women should aspire to dated "masculine roles". Isn't that recycling masculine stereotypes of "penis envy" and simple role-swapping, instead of role adaption? Isn't it making the sexist roles desirable instead of non-sexism?
. . .

I said they could, not that they should.
But I'm puzzled. Weren't you, in your last post, arguing for affirmative action and quotas to get more women into masculine roles?

My position is that people should be guided by their talents, abilities, interests, consideration for others and opportunities, and that gender should not come into it.

Penis envy? . . . I don't know what Freud was smoking.
Well, actually the subject of Freud's drug use has been well researched.

If having a meaty member was so wonderful, guys wouldn't keep wanting to play hide the sausage, would they? Personally, I'm very happy with what nature blessed me with. It's my boyfriend who's jealous. He used to think the seventh heaven was a literary fiction.

The 3' shoulder pads I mentioned were from memories of a new local-school principal who was guilty of insane power dressing. At least, unlike the preceding 2 male principals, she eventually gave up power games and bullying, and learned to get along with the staff.

Say if there was only one male living on Earth, out of a billion females who hasn't had any sex with any man for over a year. Just think of the chaos that man has to go through, everyday. There will be no sleep, no privacy.

[edit on 19-3-2010 by Shrukin89]

reply to post by Kailassa

However the nearest thing I've seen to it was in a Melbourne suburb, where a group of macho guys were busily trying to exterminate gay males, by dropping them off St Kilda Pier. - while police carefully looked in the other direction.
I wonder where the author of this thread would have stood in that situation.

I would be very interested in an answer to this comment from the OP.

Originally posted by Shrukin89
Say if there was only one male living on Earth, out of a billion females who hasn't had any sex with any man for over a year. Just think of the chaos that man has to go through, everyday. There will be no sleep, no privacy.

And just imagine whatever had eliminated the males left all these horny women covered with huge, pus-filled, maggoty warts . . .