Gregory A wrote: ↑April 26th, 2022, 3:47 am
JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 25th, 2022, 3:46 pm
Gregory A wrote: ↑April 24th, 2022, 11:24 pm
It's what I'd meant. The gendercide process would have been of girls in that instance. But now that food availability and energy waste are priorities, the work that's left favors machinery and females.
Women can and do have babies, men can't'. Making women more valuable than men as diversity is hardly needed anymore in a world already occupied by billions of people.
It is fanciful (being used as sperm donors) but not futuristic. Males have engineered their own obsolescence. Mechanization leaving the 'male' worker bordering on redundant (it is what I mean by auxiliary factors). Men don't want males eliminated but are playing a primary part in that happening.
Science fiction gets it wrong unless that is females are depicted as being in charge in the future (a scenario too politically incorrect to portray now?). Science fact is what matters. One of those facts (an auxiliary factor), an event I've alluded to already if I remember, an incident occurring in Scotland on July 5, 1993, marking a milestone (in the gendercide process too), the birth of Dolly the sheep. The first-ever cloning of an animal using an adult somatic cell. This event technically making males superfluous from that day forward. And allowing for example at some time in the near future, lesbians to have (their own) children without any male involvement whatsoever.
Gregory, I have read the post above as well as the one which you sent in reply to me. It seems to me that you are putting ideas of gender and transhumanist together in a rather haphazard way. I actually had a thread in transhumanism in the last week looking at the nature of what may be possible, although it may be that my own thread failed to link the topic with reproductive technology.
Last week? Gendercide was a projection I'd made about ten years back. Since then all potential intervening processes have not shown themselves. Gendercide is in effect inevetable. A process of Nature where the male actually plays a part in his own elimination. Where 'equality' is just a milestone, a midpoint in what is really a succession process. A supersession by the bearers of the 'X' chromosome.
You point to the possibility of lesbians conceiving and this is one possibility. However, not all women are likely to become lesbian in orientation. The spectrum of sexuality is large and the nature of gendered relationships is complex because there have been inequalities, including sexism and heterosexuality. Many gay men would like to conceive children just like men would like to. The science is not there yet.
With no males left heterosexuality becomes impossible all women homosexual by default. A situation made easier by the matriarch in the relationship being butch. A pseudo male in effect. The present cross-dressing of junior schoolgirls and the sexualization of all females combined with natural female closeness a process of (unwitting) homosexualization already underway. The spectrum is large but the ratios are small. The predominant group, the constantly under-fire heterosexual majority, the 50:1 outnumbered gay males, followed by the 100:1 outnumbered Lesbians. But these numbers too will of course mean nothing when males are eliminated.
And men having babies would be even more of an affront to women than is the position of a female mechanic an affront to men. That women should have gone through billions of painful, often agonizing, sometimes fatal, births just to be replaced by a male mother would be the ultimate show of disrespect. If this were to happen giving real reason for male-hate.
Some of the problem of the fears of gendercide may go back to the way in which women have been dominated by men. In this sense, women may feel like victims or as Simone de Beauvoir, spoke as being 'the other..However, the reversal of gender dynamics is unlikely to help. In the post which you wrote to me you spoke of men being more difficult to sustain on the basis of size. However, historically, it has been the other way round with men oppressing women in terms of power. Women's reproductive ability has been used to oppress them and it would not make sense to simply reverse this. Men and women are both important, as the yin and the yang. But, it seems to me that your own argument is based on fear, with little evidence for gendercide as the main threat for the future of humanity.
That "women have been dominated by men", "Women's reproductive ability has been used to oppress them", "men oppressing women in terms of power" are all political statements and would need to be substaniated first. And remaining a part of feminist doctrine until shown to be otherwise.
Men are no longer important having literally designed and engineered the machinery that is now making them obsolete. Feminism with its 'equality' ,'liberation' & 'empowerment' ploys only. You can't be 'equal' and not be a potential replacement for example. Why it must happen is that our primal emotions make us side with those who only appear to be effected by a disparity. The facts are that feminists, like communists who dont represent workers at all, are not representations of regular women. But are instead academic types who have never really played any part in the advancement humanity whatever and offer no real alternatives for the majority of women. Not that women can be separated in society from men anyhow.
My only fear and is in one that does play a significant part in this process and is that as a conservative in an otherwise liberal-dominated environment I will be censored. To lose your right to free speech is an horrific thing. That's when preventing political censorship would need to be the first step in stopping gendercide.
