Feminism: The Final Solution?

Posted on 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.




 

 

89 comments

  1. I’m sorry, but I have to start of with this: What the FUCK happened to these women? I’m dead serious. What could possibly have happened to these women to make them 1) hate men so badly they’d bandy about the term infanticide, and 2) fucking insane? Because short of being abused in ways absolutely unimaginable since infancy, I fail to see how anybody can grow up in a world roughly half populated by men who aren’t trying to so much as chat you up and still view all men as essentially parasitic creatures who live only to get in women’s pants through violence or brainwashing. In the words of a fellow gamer: Sweet Buttery Chocolate Christ.

    On another note, the feminist cult’s absolute belief that there is no such thing as violence among women either means they have memory problems from beatings from their lesbian lovers or they are willfully ignoring the fact that women can be far more cruel, conniving, and sadistic than any man. All you have to do is pick up the Bible or any good history book and see what men have done because their women asked them to. Being the “weaker sex” would tend to feed into more “imaginitive” ways to inflict pain and suffering on people beyond physical brute strength.

    I don’t know how you do it, Stacy. Even reading these posts with just excerpts is enough to make me want to give up on humanity.

  3. I would like to go from unemployed to Professor of Unicorn Studies at a MAJOR University, but I have too much self respect. Give it a few mores years in this Oboomba-ing economy …

    “In order to restore Unicorns to the proper place in Society all television shows not featuring little ponies and rainbows must be reduced to 10% of all television… 10% or 20% of youtube videos is self directed, graduate level 500 classes…

  4. I don’t know how you do it, Stacy. Even reading these posts with just excerpts is enough to make me want to give up on humanity.

    Perhaps this is why there has never been an in-depth critical examination of radical feminism: Everyone who previously attempted such a survey went stark raving bonkers from trying to make sense of this crazy stuff.

  5. That excerpt is one of the most offensive and distasteful I have ever read. And she said, “One option is of course male infanticide.” Of course??? One option is of course male infanticide??? What if I said that one solution to disgusting discourse is of course lesbian feminist suicide or homicide? This sick beyotch suggests infanticide as a possible “solution”! I’m sorry…wait…let me reread that…maybe I’m hallucinating…nope, that’s what she said all right. So my next question is, did she not have any children herself, or did she not have any children that survived?

    For pity’s sake. All I can say at this point is maranatha, Jesus.

  7. Amen. It’s hard enough not slitting one’s own throat while reading what you’ve put together so far.

    The book will have to have electromagnetic “trigger” warnings on it. Maybe a release form.

  8. All women blame everything on men, because they’re just some dupes standing over there browsing through oil filters. But we don’t really mean it. These psychos actually do mean it!

  10. In addition to her other obvious failings, Ms. Gearhart does not even have a passing acquaintance with the laws of supply and demand as well has supply and price. If the males are reduced to 10 percent of their value will go up, if for no other reason than the demand for “squish that spider in the bathroom” services will far outstrip the supply of those of us staring over our reading glasses while we roll up the Sunday Sports section head off on safari.

  13. I’m quite sure the only ones they’d allow are the “overly sensitive” types who profess their everlasting submission to radical feminist dogma.

    The male equivalent of a toy dog. Small, yappy, and mentally castrated.

  15. Yes… Fixing things, lifting heavy things, maintaining the infrastructure and all that as well while we ready ourselves for the next “harvest”!

  18. I woke up early to the totalitarian, gendercidal madness of Feminism – late 80’s. I read the maniacal ravings of Brownmiller, Gearhart, Greer etc. when in my mid twenties. The SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas (look it up) was a real eye opener I assure you.
    Of course back then, up until only the last few years, if I spoke of my knowledge with almost anybody I was considered to be a radical nutcase misogynist. In much of society I still am. Slowly but, more & more people are waking up to the truth about Big Fem. This I believe is a direct result of the internet & the gradual demise of the MSM. They can’t gatekeep anymore.
    As more conservative/libertarian voices like Mr McCain’s begin to speak out, the facade is quickly crumbling.
    It, I believe, has been the inherent gentlemanly traits of conservativism that have not allowed this to happen until now. Leftists that knew of the truth in the past, & now still, perpetuated the facade because Big Fem was just another spearhead to gain control over society.
    Well done to you Mr McCain for telling ot like it is.

  20. Ideology happened to them. Once you’ve bought into The Program, anything opposed to it is Evil and Must Be Destroyed.

  23. Agree wholeheartedly. It takes me multiple attempts to get through some of the excerpts; not Stacy’s writing, but the clinically insane demented feminist writing and also unwinding the fallacious logic (quote/unquote).

    And at the risk of sounding like a kiss-up, sometimes Stacy writes stuff that’s profound enough that I want to take awhile to savor it and contemplate it.

  26. “By the way, Professor Gearhart never had children”

    Thank God. Sometimes these problems work themselves out, and in one generation, no less.

    I was curious to find out if she’s still dreaming of lesbo-communist genocide in a nursing home so I googled her:

    I bless the people that others have called my [sic] “enemy” or “unacceptable” or “crazy,” for it is the presence of such people in my life that has whetted my hunger for diversity

    Naturally, her hunger for diversity doesn’t mean she wants to actually live with diversity.

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

    Sally lives north of Willits, California, on a mountain of contradictions with many animal companions

    So she’s a dessicated old cat lady. Good, good.

  27. That’s a good point, RS. Do you suppose I’d be allowed to stock up now, before the price goes up?? (Later I could sell my used men on craigslist at a tidy profit.)

  32. Oh my, that brings back memories.

    This was late 1980s when none of us had online indentiies, but I was dealing with some hardline Dianic Wiccans. This topic came up, along with the solution of doing away with most of the men.

    So I pointed out that men were still voters and weren’t about to support their own execution. Then I pointed out that guns or biological weapons were the only choice to really do what they wanted and keep all the buildings intact. Meanwhile, no matter how dimwitted they thought men were, I was pretty sure that most guys would notice that they were being culled. There would be retaliation.

    Then I asked the kicker. Who would clean it up?

    It got really quiet.

    I think that was the first time I learned just how effective common sense could be in a debate.

  34. I’m guessing you haven’t gone crazy just because you already are and can’t “go” someplace you already are.

  36. She’s got some active Google trolls too. Whenever her name comes up at least a few “white knight” defenders show up in the comments. If these comments show up on search engines there may even be a few here shortly.
    Krista Jane Heflin aka “Femtheist” is Mao in a fuzzy bunny suit. People expect bad things from totalitarian dictators making speeches while surrounded by thousands of armed soldiers but an attractive 21 year old … not so much.

  37. Yes, I was always amazed by the utter cognitive dissonance of these women who would go on and on at great length at how The Handmaid’s Tale was ripped from tomorrow’s headlines yet ten minutes later they’d be holding forth on how only the military and the police should have guns.

  39. There are lesbians who aren’t feminists and feminists who aren’t lesbians.

    Most importantly, there are lesbians who are not radical feminists.

  40. Yup. A feminist I know has lately been railing against the militarized police presence in Ferguson, for example, yet at the same time she only wants guns in the hands of the state. I’m not sure how that makes any sense, to loudly protest against signs of tyranny while at the same time literally dedicating your life and career to giving those tyrants even more power over you.

  41. “What the FUCK happened to these women?”

    I have to wonder, what happened to the postwar generations–they all seem half mad, beginning in 1946. One can’t help but wonder at the historical coincidence of nuclear explosions.

  43. Although we should probably keep them out of the elementary schools, maybe we SHOULD encourage the propagation of radical lesbian feminism. If nothing else, it would certainly reduce the recessive genes for many other psychoses on the female side of the gene pool.

  45. We have a culture, ever since the latter part of the 19th century, that has been shaped by and worships monsters. It had to become visible sooner or later.

  47. Wow. I read some of her defenders on that link. Not sure who is more crazy: Crazy Krista Jane Heflin, or her crazy apologists.

  50. I would like to see her math on the 75% to 25% thingy… suffice it to say it doesn’t work the way she thinks it does. Why are the most incompetent people always the ones who want to reorder society from scratch? Clearly this woman is ignorant of everything from biology, to mathematics, to human nature, to economics, to history. Yet she somehow deems herself qualified to make every decision for everyone.

    I think we should require all would-be college professors to work a day at the drive-thru window of a fast food restaurant for a day without making any mistakes before they are eligible to be hired. That alone would eliminate probably 95% of them. Come to think of it, that would be a good test for politicians as well.

Comments are closed.