I am sorry to say I have encountered this woman and her opinions before. They are not uncommon among academics.
They are focusing on the wrong section in commentary, the 90% dead. Those 90% would be the ones without value. For clues as to why offing the 90% seems like a good idea to her, think of her as a serial killer.
The question moves from Why kill them? to Why not kill them? and the 9:1 ratio is a good enough basis for the serial assertion.
Why spare 10% (suspiciously round number alert) of men at all? What do these men provide?
The most suitable men would simply be those who are fit in both body and mind. This is also related to genetic modification.
Society already uses eugenics with medicine, but okay…
Which is more important to her, in this utopia? (Nothing about goodness btw)
Healthy and fit men will always be ideal, but not “brutes”, which has more to do with mental attributes than physical. Anyone can lift weights.
Physically attractive, with no effort, with the docility of low testosterone.
Suddenly the suspiciously round number makes sense when you realize she is subconsciously quoting the 10-scale.
translation: The top 10% of hot men are allowed to live.
Women keeping physically attractive men as pets… or sex slaves.
It’s a new model of Communism where women are magically exempt. Nothing about ugly women, or women working or pulling our weight as a sex. What about old men who outlived their use?
Doesn’t all this dismiss the notion of companionship and the family unit?
Heterosexual companionship and the nuclear family model, yes.
What do you propose as alternatives?
Children should be raised communally and by the state. The nuclear family model is a breeding ground of deceptions, mediocrities, treacheries, hypocrisy and violence. It needs to be abolished.
There is too much wrong there to bother, I’m sorry.
If children are made wards of the state with assigned caretakers, not only will it be easier to undo the constraints of bigotry and the other archaic beliefs that are passed down from parents to their children, but children can be used to monitor the older generations [
Hitler Youth] in regard to the propagation of bigoted and antediluvian values. It is about creating a unified perception.
I mean –
Then you think sexual orientation can be designed?
Absolutely. I believe sexual orientation, like most but not all things, comes from socialisation as well as genetics – with a heavier influence from genetics. Anyone who contends that sexual orientation is purely genetic is either disingenuous or foolish. Eventually, we will be able to engineer people to a greater preference for their own sex. It seems to me that a lot of women are far more open to homosexuality than men, or at least are more willing to experiment, and why is that?
I’m not sure, you think it’s genetic?
Perhaps it’s partially genetic, but it’s also due to an ingrained fear that men have of appearing homosexual because that isn’t what a “man” is supposed to be. With the combined forces of social and genetic engineering, we can easily reshape and mold human sexuality into whatever we desire.
She is jealous of lesbians.
Heartiste is correct, the low fertility of these nutjobs is a feature, not a bug.
There is a hidden aspect of this arrangement. These Communes require enforced lesbianism, women cannot be allowed to rely on men, even for sex. She hints the hold-outs, demanding to keep their heterosexuality (!!!) are the damaged, degenerate ones.