The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Feminism: The Final Solution?

Posted on | September 13, 2014 | 89 Comments

Sally Miller Gearhart is a feminist and a lesbian (but I repeat myself) who as a professor at San Francisco State University in the 1970s helped develop one of the first Women’s Studies programs in the nation. For quite some time, I’ve seen a quote from Professor Gearhart posted in various places around the Internet:

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.”

This ne plus ultra expression of feminism’s genocidal hostility to men was sufficiently intriguing to me that I tracked down the source. Gearhart’s quote is from her essay, “The Future — If There Is One — Is Female,” which was included in the 1982 anthology Reweaving the Web of Life: Feminism and Nonviolence, edited by Pam McAllister.

Thanks to the generous support of readers — “Hit the Freaking Tip Jar!” — I obtained a copy of this book from Amazon. Here is an excerpt that provides the context of Gearhart’s infamous quote:

Enslaved by male-identification and years of practice within the system as we all still are to one degree or another, the assumption must be that the present system of monopoly capitalism and patriarchy must be replaced and that non-male-identified women must be the responsible ones. . . .
At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we are to create and preserve a less violent world. I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future. II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. III) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race. . . .
To return species responsibility to women means in very practical terms that erotic and reproductive initiative must be restored to women all over the globe. . . . Make the decision entirely that of the woman as to how she will be impregnated and how often, if indeed she chooses to be so at all, and whether by heterosexual intercourse, artificial insemination or a form of ovular merging. Restore to each woman the inalienable right to say what shall become of any fertilized egg and to control absolutely the number of children she wishes to emerge from her body. . . . Make nonexistent any male’s say-so in the process of reproduction. Create and protect alternative structures of economic and psychological support for independent women — women not attached to men — who are child-bearers and child-raisers. . . .
Women will bear the number of children they know can be sustained not just by their own social group but by the wide ecological system. They will not bear the children that some man wants only to perpetuate his name or the family possession of his property; they will not bear the children they presently convince themselves they must have because their only role is obedient wife and mother; women will not have the children men think are necessary to perpetuate the tribe or the religion or the specific culture. Instead they will bear the children that they want, that they can care for, and that they assess are needed by the specific group and the entire species. . . .
In every culture it must be women in charge of the changes: women-identified women, no women who are pawns of men, not women who out of their fear of losing their lives or those of their children, still hold to the securities of that dangerous patriarchal culture, but women utterly free of coercion, free of male influence and committed to the principle that the right of species regulation is their own, and not the prerogative of any man. I suggest that lesbians and other independent women are already moving in this direction. . . .
To secure a world of female values and female freedom we must, I believe, add one more element to the structure of the future: the ratio of men to women must be radically reduced so that men approximate only ten percent of the total population. . . .
We now come to a critical point: how is such a reduction in the male population to take place? One option is of course male infanticide. It differs very little from the female infanticide that has apparently been carried out even into the twentieth century by some cultures. Such an alternative is clearly distasteful and would not constitute creative social change. . . .
[I]f women are given the freedom of their bodies then they may well choose [experimental “ovular merging” technology that produces only female embryos] in great enough numbers to make a significant difference in the sex ratio of women to men. A 75% female to 25% male ratio could be achieved in one generation if one-half of a population reproduced heterosexually and one-half by ovular merging.
Such a prospect is attractive to women who feel that if they bear sons no amount of love and care and nonsexist training will save those sons from a culture where male violence is institutionalized and revered. These are women saying, “No more sons. We will not spend twenty years of our lives raising a potential rapist, a potential batterer, a potential Big Man.”

What more needs to be said? Well, first, let us notice Professor Gearhart’s contrast between “male-identified” women and “woman-identified” women.  These phrases recall the title of the 1970 Radicalesbians manifesto, “The Woman Identified Woman.” That is to say, “male-identified” women — “pawns of men,” as Professor Gearhart describes them — are simply heterosexual women, and “women-identified women” are lesbians. Professor Gearhart could assume that a feminist readership in 1982 would understand the meaning of the phrase. The book in which her essay appears also includes selections by such famed lesbian feminists as Barbara Deming and Karla Jay.

As for Professor Gearhart’s enthusiasm for “ovular merging,” her knowledge of science is about what you’d expect for a Women’s Studies professor. Such methods are still merely experiments with lab mice and, although there are methods of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) by which sex-selection is possible, the vast majority of human beings are still conceived the old-fashioned heterosexual way.

Her fantasy of achieving a 90% female population through advanced reproductive technology is therefore still a fantasy, more than 30 years after she wrote “The Future — If There Is One — Is Female.” By the way, Professor Gearhart never had children, while “patriarchal culture” has produced more than 2.5 billion children since 1982.

Oops.




 

 

Comments

  • Steve Skubinna

    So are you denying that women can moosh their ovaries together and spontaneously regenerate?

    Now who’s ignorant, denier?

  • Steve Skubinna

    This is the way (Fill in the blank) Studies programs work. You make shit up. No intellectual rigor, no testing of hypotheses, no duplication of results (largely because there are no results).

    Make shit up, get published, tenure for the win!

  • maniakmedic

    Reminds me of the “wants more government” meme.

  • maniakmedic

    And then call people names or declare that they are a repressed homosexual when they take issue with your made-up facts.

  • maniakmedic

    No wonder lesbians are so pro-choice! And here I am thinking human female biology worked pretty much like all other mammalian biology! Who knew?

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Brilliant!

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture.

    So…this thing [she’s no Woman] wants us to return to a time that never existed in the REAL WORLD. Typical of someone who is utterly mad.

  • Zohydro

    Are you talking human reproductive biology? If so, there’s never been a real question that it is different in key aspects even compared with primates, our closest relatives amongst the animals!

    Now, whilst being a believer myself in darwinian evolution, even human evolution, I have never doubted that humans had a special place in Creation as evidenced in part by human culture and our unique “reproductive strategies”…

  • Zohydro

    Tammy Bruce?

  • NeoWayland

    That’s one certainly. There’s also Cynthia Yockey who sometimes has some very interesting things to say.

    They aren’t that hard to find, you just have to ignore the shouting from the radicals.

    ETA: Well, that’s a mess. Disqus wants to embed page links in their own code. Here’s the site addy:

    http://www.aconservativelesbian.com

  • Monty James

    The opinions of childless lesbians–yawn.

  • maniakmedic

    I was going more for the absolute base sperm-meets-egg-male-and-female-both-are-required-to-reproduce biology. Various ridiculous human mating rituals and games notwithstanding.

  • Pingback: Feminism: The Final Solution? | That Mr. G Guy's Blog()

  • gearbox123

    “To secure a world of female values and female freedom we must, I believe, add one more element to the structure of the future: the ratio of men to women must be radically reduced so that men approximate only ten percent of the total population. . . .”

    You know, if I have to choose between a future under Islam and a future under batshit-crazy genocidal lesbians, Islam starts to look OK.
    As Mark Steyn pointed out ten years ago, just grow your beard longer, pick up a couple extra wives, and you’ll be OK. But the chick above – there’s no dealing with people like that.

  • gearbox123

    I think you’re on to something there.

  • gearbox123

    Let’s feed the feminists to Cthulhu and call it even.

  • gearbox123

    “Without men, civilization would last until the oil needed changing.”

    Don’t know who first said it, but it’s true.

  • gearbox123

    “She lives in a rural outpost whose closest town is 80% white and only 0.7% black.”

    That’s VERY typical. Leftists always prescribe diversity for others, never themselves.

  • Eliot

    What did Cthulhu do to deserve that punishment?

  • jakee308

    If they call themselves feminist, they’re lesbians. They may like men and have sex with them but they’re still lesbians at heart.

    And of course lesbians are feminists by design.

  • jakee308

    Too bad you don’t apply that to some of your own analysis.

  • NeoWayland

    Well, I disagree with you there.

    Did you realize how close your argument matches the radical feminists? Is that a group you really want to agree with?

  • Pingback: Rosie’s Back on the ‘View’, Healthier, Happier… | Regular Right Guy()

  • NeoWayland

    I make the distinction between radicals and not. It’s a distinction that the RadFems deny, which is one good reason to make it. It serves the RadFem agenda if they claim to speak for all feminists or all women.

    Oddly enough, that’s true in almost every group with a radical subgroup. The radicals claim the moral high ground and to speak for everyone in the group. It doesn’t matter if the group is Republican, libertarian, Democrat, Christian, pagan, or a book club. That’s when it’s about the politics rather than the group’s cause.

    More accurately, it’s about who gets to call the shots.

  • Steve Skubinna

    It isn’t my fault! I’m a victim of the patriarchy, juts like everybody else!

  • DukeLax

    I personally believe this will be the end game!! American gender-feminists are going to keep perverting American law enforcement…keep pushing for more and more “manufactured statistics Alliances” with law enforcement….until we reach the point where hetero-relationships are such a legal liability for guys in the US…that they are forced to go “MGTOW” just to retain equal protection under the law!!!
    I predict American women are not going to like the long term consequences of this…..at all!!

  • DukeLax

    They believe that as long as they keep up the volume of “Inflamed hyster”….then men will keep giving them what they want…JUST TO MAKE THE NOISE STOP!!!

    But men do not realize that “hysteria” will not be appeased. I repeat…..”the hyster” will not be appeased.

    As in the appeasement approach will not work here!!!

  • Pingback: Our radical feminist betters call for killing of 3 billion men | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics()

  • EqualityEd

    Can we talk about misandry? If not yet then when, because if I just read a long hateful screed like that I wouldn’t say,” What more needs to be said? “. The fact you think males are supposed to put up with this treatment is sickening. I hope young boys today won’t have to grow up in a world where the adults resent the male children because of their sex.

  • NWOslave

    This is a decent enough blog, but what you need to understand is that any group promoted be the state/media complex is promoted for the sole purpose of the transfer of wealth and power.

    Take the Rice guy incident. What does what he does in private have to do with his job. Nothing, he broke no rules within his job parameters. But now there’s a commission/agency within football itself to monitor what? The private lives of football players? Money is transferred and the state gains power.

    The same goes for this woman, she’s a bonafide lunatic, yet she gets paid by the people to foment unrest. Money is transferred and the state gains power.

    If there is no money/power to be gained, the state/media will not endorse it. With every new freedom/equality law, money is transferred and power is handed to the state. It’s always about the money. The woman is a lunatic and her little lectures have given rise to more lunatics whom the media endorses as something revolutionary which has transferred more wealth and power to the state than a 1/4% tax hike ever could.

  • Bicycle-riding Fish

    Yep. For example, if you take a look at the behind the scenes SJW players in the #Gamergate drama, the overwhelming majority of the bigots clamoring for ‘equality for us but not for them’ are overprivileged white kids.

    http://silverstringmedia.com/team/

    ^These are the guys who seem to be pulling a lot of the strings behind Anita Sarkeesian, ZOe Quinn, etc. and screaming racism and misogyny. Not a colored face to be found in the crowd.

  • I’d rather post as guest

    “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”

    -Friedrich Nietzsche

  • akulkis

    LOL… if society were 90% female, then who would lift the heavy boxes and kill the icky spider for them?

    Proof that even women with PhDs can’t comprehend even the most basic levels of consequences and cause-and-effect.

  • akulkis

    Being abused since infancy…

    See: Borderline Personality Disorder.
    [Go beyond the mere clinical descriptions, and read some BPD support forums..which are, for the most part populated by people who have to deal with BPD’s

    Compare what you find about how people describe the actions of BPDs with Feminists.

    There’s your answer.

  • akulkis

    Wow… so you don’t notice that most all of feminist doctrine is how to fool heterosexual women into supporting causes that hurt their family, for the benefit of lesbians?

    Wake up, Rip van Winkle.

  • akulkis

    He’s not talking about pre-sex rituals, he’s talking about fertilization, etc.

    Obligotory sheesh: SHEESH!

  • NeoWayland

    What I’ve noticed is that a growing number share some of the ideals without the doctrine. Their views are closer to first and second wave feminists, although that is not them either.

    I’ve also noticed that certain radical feminists usually claim to speak for all women when they never have.

  • Pingback: GayPatriot » Hermione Granger Lectures Mos Eisley Spaceport on Feminism()

  • Pingback: The Incoherence of Liberal Feminism : The Other McCain()