"we are all the time working with the understanding that men will kill each other and everyone if they are given even the slightest impetus to do so."

"men are more or less inherently violent and there is no way to stop this or change it"

Refusing to birth any new male children seems like a much more sensible start. Overpopulation and the resource scarcity that goes along with overpopulation beget more violence, not less, no matter how much reformist activating takes place. I therefore think that population reduction, and specifically a reduction in new male births, is a better path forward.

If every woman on earth refused to birth any new men from this point forward, male violence would actually completely end within 100 years. Can any type of reformist activating hope to be as effective within the same time period?

***

I had the same idea eons ago, except that I thought about giving the boys away to male caretakers on their first birthdays. I also thought of an extremely controversial idea to try and prevent adult males from being larger and stronger than adult females, based on something I read about the nutrition of the first year of a child’s life being determinative of whether or not that child would reach maximum size and strength. Based on that, I thought of reducing the total caloric intake of the male child (and increasing that of the female) during year one, to much outrage, so I panned the idea. My idea was that we could reduce or eliminate the physical discrepancy between adult males and females and at the same time reduce the level of women’s attachment to their male offspring by a) their realization of the necessity of the caloric reduction and b) the early relinquishment of the boys, at age 1.

***

well thats interesting isnt it — dont starve them, just dont let them reach their full potential.

***

That doesn’t mean there can’t be more women than men. That would likely improve things quite a bit. The question is what to do with them that keeps them from inflicting themselves on us.