The End of Men? Not Again!

She means what she writes and,at present,I can see no reason why she should be wrong.
Alpha males are busy handing over to women and have given
lesser males no chance in life through education,law
finance or social mores.
Radfems talk of there being only 10-20% males allowed to be born.If that goal is achieved,they say that there will then be no wars.There will be no need of male finance or protection,there appears to be little now,and inheritance
will be applicable to females only.
I don't know what is going to happen at any point,maybe the young men will rise up and be killed but I doubt it,maybe they will enjoy their new role and be better treated than my generation were in ww2,I remember the guys coming home without eyes limbs etc and having to stand on streets selling matches.Governments appear to have the same attitude now.

The good news is that Rosin, and feminists in general, are dead wrong if they think men aren't absolutely paramount for the world to function. Janet Bloomfield did an excellent piece showing why men are necessary here:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/judgybitch-pray-men-never-take-a-day-off/

She basically proves that if every man took a day off work on the same day, the world would be screwed for that day.

I guess that radfems are aware of this to some extent, which is why their goal is to reduce the male population to only 10 percent, not to eradicate it entirely. I think even with those numbers the world would not be sustainable--at least not the world that we know.

While I have no doubt there are a fair number of feminists who think a 10% male pop'n would be much better than a 50% one, first, there's the matter of actually being able to make it happen. This'd require getting a very large percentage of the childbearing-age female pop'n to do whatever it takes to make sure they have daughters, to the tune of 90% of the time. Or, there'd have to be some way to make this be the outcome. How to do either? Genetic engineering? Financial incentives from the gov't ($ for girls, a fine for boys)? A massive PR campaign to encourage women to abort male fetuses and keep at it 'til they have a girl? Or maybe free in vitro fertilization provided you use Y chromosome-bearing sperm cells only? Who knows!

Point is, it's kind of hard to come up with a reliable way to reduce the number of people of whatever sex relative to the other. Even in cultures where there's a genderal preference for boys, for example, and where they practice selective abortions (legally or not) or where feminine infanticide is done (ugh!!!) still don't see a 10% female population; it's more like 40%.

Point is, it'll be pretty hard for the feminists who want it to realize this 10% males goal really stand no chance if doing so. But even if for some reason a pop'n was only 10% male and could be maintained as such, it'd spell genetic disaster. In humans, the 2 chromosomes provide the genetic variation necessary to create what biologists call "robust offspring". The robustness is primarily geared toward defense against parasites and disease. By keeping the varying genome in a line of offspring and keeping it broad-based, humans have stayed just a few steps ahead of the nasty stuff. Reducing the variation pool from 50% males to 10%, this critical variation effect will be substantially reduced. Enough to make humanity susceptible enough to these biological threats to endanger it? With modern medicine, probably not. But what it is likely to do is increase the birth defect rate. In genetically closed (i.e., non-diverse) populations, the birth defect rate is usually measurably higher than in diverse ones. A 10% male pop'n will foster this lack of genetic diversity, and eventually, it'd catch up with us.

But given that it's hard to see just how feminists could realize this goal, I'm not too worried. But the kind of bigotry and hatred is far more concerning than the idea that it could actually come to pass.