I recently stumbled upon a Vice article from 2014, outlining an interview they had arranged with a YouTuber going by the moniker of “The Femitheist.” As the name might suggest, this figure was left-leaning, but what I found in the article was surprising. She was different.
Without bearing down too hard on feminism, which will be a key talking point during this article, I want to note that the kind of feminist or at least leftist which people usually think of (primarily memes about social justice warriors) does not include her. While she may agree with her more common, socially accepted colleagues, she is a unique case. It is important to remember this.
It is also important to keep in mind that what The Femitheist discusses during this interview is by no means a realized or even potential goal for many left-leaning individuals, including the more radical ones.
The article’s headline outlines what is arguably the most extreme point of her idea: reduction of the male population by 90 percent. While this headline has undoubtedly been mocked by many without a second glance, I took the time to look through what she had to say. Oddly enough, I’ve heard that proposition before, but only in pipe dream form by some of the hardest leaning leftists, who have been appropriately mocked and dismissed. But again, this is different.
In short, what The Femitheist proposes (and has apparently written 700 pages of theory about) is a society in which males constitute only 10% of the population, and solely serve as breeders for females. Males would be treated to supreme comfort from the cradle to the grave.
Education would be controlled to indoctrinate girls into this new male/female dichotomy (males would receive no education, as far as I could tell).
Males would be segregated on their own “preservation”, distant from the rest of society. Gender would be genetically controlled so as to keep this desired ratio.
There would be no war. No dissent. No independent states.
Men would, as she admits, be reduced to the value of their sperm, and have no emotional connection to their mates, of whom there would certainly be a multitude. She also indulges the possibility of genetically altering female dispositions toward lesbianism, although she makes it abundantly clear she does not think it’s possible solely through genetics, but through upbringing as well.
She disclosed this would all take several generations, but she believes it is entirely within the realm of possibility.
Needless to say, I would be shocked if any substantial number of people also sought to bring about this utopia she outlined, even among the most hardcore leftists. Concepts like this are few and far between, and this is what separates The Femitheist from the rest of those who could be considered in the same political sphere as her: detail.
She discloses that she has talked to experts in genetic fields about her work, and they said it’s plausible. She is calculating. She is intelligent. To a degree, I respect the amount of work that went into this idea, if this is what she truly believes is the right path to a healthy society.
But for all her hard work and attention to detail, she has omitted a key point, and this is the major chink in her armor.
People need chaos.
Chaos is an essential element of a healthy human environment. Psychologically, children need to be able to confront chaos and make order out of it (which is why this theme is highly prevalent in ancient Greek and Mesopotamian mythology).
As adults, we need to have something like the wilderness to struggle with, whether it's physical, social or spiritual. That’s the beauty of life, is the ever-turning cycle of chaos struggled into order and then the process repeats itself through turmoil, but that’s just what the Femitheist forgets is a vital component of humanity.
She dreams of a stateless world, one without borders or regional identities or anything that makes up the mosaic we call planet earth.
She dreams of a world without dissent, where you can funnel in the concepts promoted by the status quo directly into children’s heads with no friction and no inspiration of what makes children unique.
She dreams of a world where women see men as inferior sex objects, useful only for the pleasure and genetic material they provide and devoid of any thoughts, feelings, passions, aspirations, longings, perspectives, humanity.
In conclusion, I feel bad for her. If this is really what she feels would be ideal for humanity—no family, no positive male presence, no freedom—then I really can’t feel anything else but pity for her. I can’t help but wonder what she came from that led her to believe in her cruel, warped version of Plato’s Republic.
I have no animosity toward you, Femitheist. But maybe I don’t want your utopia.
