Saturday, August 30, 2014

“Yes Means Yes” in California (Quick Summary of Thoughts)


Text of Bill:



SB 967, as amended, De León. Student safety: sexual assault.

Existing law requires the governing boards of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions to adopt and implement written procedures or protocols to ensure that students, faculty, and staff who are victims of sexual assault on the grounds or facilities of their institutions receive treatment and information, including a description of on-campus and off-campus resources.

This bill would require the governing boards of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions, in order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, to adopt policies concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that include certain elements, including an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. The bill would require these governing boards to adopt certain sexual assault policies and protocols, as specified, and would require the governing boards, to the extent feasible, to enter into memoranda of understanding or other agreements or collaborative partnerships with on-campus and community-based organizations to refer students for assistance or make services available to students. The bill would also require the governing boards to implement comprehensive prevention and outreach programs addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. By requiring community college districts to adopt or modify certain policies and protocols, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.

Likely Negatives:

1) As noted in the Digest (summary) of the law, the state mandates that localities and schools do something, but provides no funds for carrying out the mandate, instead creating penalties for failures to do so. This is known as an “unfunded mandate,” and these sorts of things occur at all levels of government. It is often the case, with matters such as this, that the penalties are so severe that compliance is almost certain.

Staffing, monetary resources, and time must come from somewhere to implement these things, and in this case, all of that will likely result in higher tuition fees. But, the “stick,” namely withdrawal of state funds for financial assistance, is what pays some of those tuitions. One way or another, whether the higher tuition is paid by the student, his/her parents, or by those same people, as well as non-students, in higher taxes… there is no free lunch.

2) This is mostly “feel good” legislation. Much of what it calls for is already in place in terms of discouragement of rape, and colleges and universities all over the country are already experimenting with new techniques for reporting and resolution of rape claims:

This simply forces a bit more standardization (and of course bureaucracy). As is frequently the case, there are rape victims who are being told that what caused their rape has now been ”fixed,” but this is often, in hindsight, not seen to be true. At the federal level, many claim that letting individual states conduct such experiments is beneficial to see which techniques work and which don’t. However, a one-size-fits-all solution may actually stifle innovation and simply allow legislatures to claim “we fixed it” during the next election cycle.

3) In spite of the law's intent, there will be continued confusion regarding what constitutes consent:

“While the bill doesn't spell out what ‘affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement’ looks like in practice, it’s very clear what doesn't count as consent: lack of protest or resistance, silence, unconsciousness or being asleep or too intoxicated to understand what’s going on.” [1]

On the other hand:

“Sexual assault prevention advocates welcomed the bill, which challenges the idea that victims have to resist an assault in order to have a valid complaint. ‘The survivors [of sexual assault] are going to be positively affected because they are going to be going into a system that no longer asks them why they didn’t do something,’ Denice Labertew, the director of advocacy services at the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, told Inside Higher Ed in June.” [1]

Will consenting parties to each sex act feel compelled to make a video recording of every event “just in case”? If they do that, then what if one person changes their mind later and decides to claim that they were coerced into recording the video? Would it be better to have a witness around to supervise the sex act in order to ensure that it was, as required, consensual?

The possibility of such laws existing, only a few years ago, was the subject of comedy sketches, with the male asking for permission to fondle the female’s buttocks, followed by another request to fondle her breasts, and so on (so much for spontaneity). Older comedy material might have had the female saying “don’t” and “stop” to put the male off, but in the end saying “don’t stop” to encourage him on. How would the law interpret such mixed signals even if the entire act were to be recorded?

4) In real life situations there will still be a preponderance of cases where it is his word against hers (and all permutations of genders). With society only recently broken free (mostly) from legal regimes based on religious doctrine, one can only conclude that we are now progressing toward a new age of secular puritanism. Maybe the next step is a return to separate dorms, 10-o'clock curfews, and unannounced bed-checks, mandated not by some religious school, but by the state itself. Perhaps state run boys-only and girls-only schools with no opposite sex visitation policies will be next.

Potential Positives:

1) In addition to being a subject of campaign materials for liberals who will claim more concern for women (while conservatives will dare say nothing but “me too”), this is a “mom and apple pie law.” It is difficult to be against it on grounds other than cost and lack of enforceability, which are, realistically, fairly substantial issues with the current proposal.

2) Protests over it will in fact raise awareness and result in changes in behavior even if it has no significant impact on actual rape statistics. Just as gun laws restricting the number of bullets in a gun’s magazine have had no noticeable effect on crime rates involving guns, people with no intent at all to commit a rape will take extra precautions or just avoid sex involving a partner altogether. However, the behavior of those already inclined to commit rape will likely go unchanged.

3) While I’ve described this awareness aspect negatively, there will probably be a marginal (if hard to measure) impact from it. Possibly as younger children, not yet past puberty, observe the caution taken by their older friends and siblings, a subtle psychological effect will take hold. This might extend beyond college students as well, to those around them, or to those who interact/engage with them (since not all sexual contact by college students occurs exclusively with other college students).

Some Fair Conclusions:

1) Will likely be mostly ineffective as it is intended.

2) Potentially not cost efficient.

3) Heavy-handed, too “strict”; seems as though it’d be more likely to result in abstinence than anything else, which doesn’t really solve the “problems” that it seeks to address (although that’d be a bonus for some conservative and religious or “traditionalistic” collectives).

4) Unlikely to solve the issue of people being “confused” over what constitutes “consent.”

5) Might raise simple awareness of some of the issues that it seeks to address.

6) Could help, in a supplementary sense, to foster some sort of positive long-term psychological (or cultural) shift. Although, even if it did, it might be difficult to quantify exactly how much of the shift came from this law, and the shift, just from this, probably wouldn’t be all that substantial.

Some Possible Alternative Solutions (related to consent, et cetera):

1) Have campuses offer free, optional sessions that cover consent, et cetera, with sex-neutral language. People could sign up to attend, and the meetings could be held fairly regularly (depending on how many people sign up and then actually show up).

2) Require students to take a sex education class that covers consent and safety as part of the school’s general prerequisite courses (not ex post facto); sex-neutral application.

3) Hold 2-3 seminars on consent, sexual assault/rape and personal safety per semester (with sex-neutral language and application). These could be larger than mere “sessions,” and efforts could be made to try to encourage as many students as possible to come. Even non-students could attend.

4) Have campuses produce videos for their websites, et cetera, that cover consent and safety, with sex-neutral application and language.

That’s about all that I’ve got to say on this for the moment; just a quick analysis.

If you’ve got thoughts on this issue, feel free to leave them in the comments below.

Thank you all for reading.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]


[1] By Gail Sullivan August 29 Washington Post

Other References:

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Take Back the Light (Calling All Supporters)


NOTE: This post is another temporary one.

This is a call to all fair-minded individuals that like me or my work who are interested in finding new ways to get involved and be more supportive. If you consider yourself one of those people, send me an email as soon as possible to to learn how you can help. Only with your assistance and active support can we combat the irrationality, disinformation and propaganda presently in circulation (and rising) online. Every person and bit of help matters.

And, make no mistake, the current tactics and actions of many of those responding to me are nothing short of malicious and unreasonable at heart; a great deal of my detractors and "opponents" are establishment-minded individuals and groups, lashing out due to fear of others challenging their deeply ingrained and misguided norms and status quos. They seek to censor and silence me over time by fostering irrationality in great numbers, and they are attempting to distort my words by selectively filtering them and everything that I do through sordid lenses which appeal heavily to primitive emotions. They even have no qualms about blatantly lying when it comes to me and my positions.

I have proved all of that repeatedly in the last week or two with my responses to some of the major "articles" that are currently sending me traffic, and by asking many of my so-called adversaries to send me orderly and cogent objections. Only a few have done so, because the others simply do not care about reasonable fairness or intellectually honesty; they are Agents of Disinformation, content with disregarding fairness and intellectual honesty while continuing to criticize and attack (otherwise, they would report my true perspectives and not easily disproved lies and misrepresentations).

If you like me and my work, or wish to support me in some way, or feel that some of the disinformation and propaganda campaigns taking place against me right now are unacceptable, then contact me via email and we will discuss the matter further so that you might play an active role in aiding us in fulfilling our objectives; we will combat these liars, libelers and anti-intellectual propagandists until a far higher number of people are fair, objective and reasonable when viewing my work, and we will not falter.

Take the step today and become a part of the true solution; send me an email.

Thank you all for reading.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

NOTE II: My normal posting routine (content-wise) will be back on schedule as soon as possible.

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Disinformation and Propaganda: LibertyDoll Cares Little about Journalistic Integrity (and Why That's Unacceptable)


UPDATE (September 7, 2014): recently revised their biased article, and not only is their new addition still incorrect (wrong/misleading), but it even contradicts their own statements in the paragraphs before and after it (feel free to read all of this firsthand on their article, linked below):

“She recently backpedaled on her 'Castration Day' plans, stating it was all a big, angry, joke of misunderstanding, and that she does not support circumcision (two different things). However, her belief in 'the ratio' and how it must be accomplished still stands.”

Firstly, I stated around two years ago now that ICD was not a serious post (late 2012/early 2013), and several people can verify that (it's been on my pages for quite some time as well); ergo, their stating that I “recently backpedaled” on the matter is demonstrably false (simply more poorly-researched deceit). Nearly two years ago isn't “recent.”

My FAQ has stated that fact for over a year and a half (and it's been in plain sight; imagine that).

Secondly, they were so lazy with their update that this new entry in their piece now contradicts the paragraphs around it, which makes their already lying and foolish article seem even more amateurish.

Thirdly, I stated in a post that I oppose male circumcision (and by extension male genital mutilation); that same logic would apply to castration (which is a type of male genital mutilation). Along with all of that, I've said directly for quite some time that I do not advocate castration, so their attempted point about that was both nonsensical and silly (why should they bother to actually research or report any fair truth, though).

They knew very well that I had already stated, long before, that I am opposed to both castration AND male circumcision (or male genital mutilation, in general). This is yet another failure on their part to accurately report my words. They did it out of pettiness (or it occurred due to their incompetence or indolence). That jab by them was nothing more than another lowly effort to confuse their readers on my perspectives and statements.

Finally, the rest of their misrepresentations, which I disproved below, remain. They've only lessened the already poor quality of their piece with these failed “corrections” (now contradicting their very own reporting, three paragraphs in a row, and that's on top of the original misinterpretation of their primary source).

See: the second line below, and the paragraphs before and after it.

From their original post (still there):

“Terrifyingly, she has spawned a gaggle of followers that believe in selective breeding, male-only abortions, and an International Castration Day.”

Their “correction” which contradicts the above paragraph and the one following it:

“She recently backpedaled on her 'Castration Day' plans, stating it was all a big, angry, joke of misunderstanding, and that she does not support circumcision (two different things). However, her belief in 'the ratio' and how it must be accomplished still stands.”

Who needs continuity (?):

“Nothing says 'peace' quite like genital mutilation, eugenics, and murder. Oh, and slavery. There’s slavery, too.”

Journalistic integrity and intellectual honesty necessitate that articles and reporting be truthful, fair and factual.

(Note how I interpret their statements correctly, show their quotes in full, and bother to actually mention all of the context and their changes directly, with proper sourcing. These tasks aren't difficult to carry out or accomplish.)

UPDATE (August 27, 2014): It appears that someone from has seen this post, but they chose not to update their piece to correct their lies and misrepresentations accordingly. Apparently, they can comb through random websites for ancient writings that I wasn't serious about, and have stated for nearly two years that I wasn't serious about, but they can't be bothered to link to the multiple occasions of me making it clear that I don't advocate what they've accused me of advocating. All of the information below, and elsewhere, was readily available before their piece went live.

And, they knew that.

LTD, and others, have made their positions clear: they care not about journalistic integrity or reporting the facts and truth.

They couldn't even interpret the statements of their own source accurately.

ORIGINAL TEXT (August 23, 2014):

NOTE: This post is lengthy, and there is some repetition, but it is repetition of key points that I felt needed to be emphasized so that no one can claim that they missed them, or that they didn't understand what I meant.

NOTE II: This article also extends to the posts done by,, and any other outlet which has repeated, or will repeat, the lies of's original disinformation and propaganda piece.


Standards for what is considered “journalistic integrity” vary throughout the world. This is especially true on the internet and with internet-based reporting outlets, where a variety of competing sites are operated by different individuals who often hold conflicting and even outright opposing perspectives on numerous topics and issues. For some news and commentary outlets, truth, facts and accurate reporting of story details are valued precepts, and even considered necessary components of the journalistic process. For others, articles are written and used to shape biased narratives against and for things by distorting facts for the sake of the operators' own personal agendas. When the intention is to forge a biased narrative for the purpose of doing something or someone harm, be it harm to a message or cause, or to an individual or group, this can mean twisting or misrepresenting details to fit a particular mold in order to create a certain narrative that will mislead readers against whatever the writers feel is an opposing cause, endeavor, person or collective.

In the case of a recent article published by a site entitled, which has since been shared and re-posted across numerous sites, the acts of distorting facts and misrepresenting details were taken to the propagandistic extremes of committing libel, spreading disinformation, and even reporting things as facts that blatantly contradicted their own source. Their article was a re-post of a recent interview that I did with with their own commentary attached at the beginning. Their commentary not only misrepresented me and my positions, but also failed to even report their own source’s details correctly. Their piece is little more than another effort by the internet’s disinformation machine to deceive readers and turn them against me in hopes of negatively impacting me and my pursuits. It is a work of propaganda and lies.

Their article can be found here.

When reporting on someone or something, journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information, and their published articles should reflect those standards, but these are not the journalistic principles that are being adhered to by many news outlets currently, including They would prefer to report what they would like to be in order to deceptively drive their audience in the directions that they desire, instead of reporting what actually is.

In order to combat these lies and misrepresentative comments, it is imperative that their statements be corrected for in some way, because they are misleading, presumably, hundreds, or even thousands, of people. And, whether some of my views are considered “outrageous” by others or not, that does not make misrepresentation, disregarding facts, or outright lying about and libeling me acceptable. Not only are such deceptive tactics antithetical to the natures of reasonable discourse, journalistic integrity, and free-thinking skepticism (if there is such a thing anymore, or ever was), but the things that are being done to me right now would be entirely rejected or scrutinized heavily for bias and misrepresentation if my opinions were more “conventionally acceptable” or “popular.”

A great number of people at the moment simply do not care to research my actual positions and work, and few people seem to care to point out mistakes or lies when others report or comment on me, because they have biases against me that are so strong that they can't overcome them; they don’t mind attacking me and arguing against me, but they have very little regard for fairness, decency, truth, research, or facts (what is and what isn’t).

These things are intolerable, intellectually dishonest, anti-skeptical, fallacious reasoning, improper argumentation, and just unseemly in general. I will not sit idly by as others smear and lie about me, my work and my views, and I will not sit in silence as these disinformation and propaganda campaigns attempt to snuff me out by forging false narratives.

And, make no mistake; what wrote at the top of their article contained a great deal of disinformation and propaganda. They were libeling, misleading and lying. For all who are fair-minded and care only about facts and the truth, these dishonest strategies presently being employed against me should be viewed as entirely unacceptable. They, quite literally, attributed views and language to me that I do not accept, contradicted me and my own statements directly, whilst simultaneously claiming that those things were my statements and views, and even misrepresented the information provided by their own source.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

Recent and relevant articles (recommended):


Their article begins by “introducing” me and making reference to the 90:10 ratio that I espouse:

“Meet a 22-year-old, southern criminology student with a three-year-old child. She calls herself the Femitheist and has a blog, YouTube channel, and is writing a book all about the 'importance' of reducing the male population to roughly 1-10% in order to achieve world peace and 'true equality.' Somehow, she expects this to end war, rape, and violence in general. Though this seems like trying to end violence by committing violence – because it is – she asserts that it is 'the only logical solution.' Terrifyingly, she has spawned a gaggle of followers that believe in selective breeding, male-only abortions, and an International Castration Day. She asserts that men of all ages would need to attend a castration ceremony, and murdered if they refuse. Don’t worry, though, the men’s spouses and mothers have the option to 'milk the male' before castration if they want a sperm sample.

Nothing says 'peace' quite like genital mutilation, eugenics, and murder. Oh, and slavery. There’s slavery, too.

Toby McCasker over at Vice decided to go boldly where probably no man ought to go (safety purposes) and conducted an interview to try and get a better understanding of all this hullabaloo. Due to the fact that it is probably one of the most terrifying things I’ve ever read – it’s like a combination of 1984, Brave New World, and the Communist Manifesto…but with 'feminism' – I’ve decided to include the interview in it’s entirety below.”

Since I have already addressed most of the issues with’s article in one of the posts linked above, I will not be going over all of those items again here. However, it should be noted that was, and is (and apparently is too), an outlet which engages in a lot of sensationalizing with their headlines and article formats. When it comes to me, of course, people don’t care what was sensationalized or misrepresented, but nevertheless, it happened. Even’s article title “The Woman Who Thinks Reducing the Male Population by 90 Percent Will Solve Everything” was misrepresentative click-baiting. I never stated that I believe that the ratio will solve everything, and have said directly since then that I never intended that to be the case or implied as what I believe.

I will begin by addressing’s first misrepresentative lines:

“Somehow, she expects this to end war, rape, and violence in general. Though this seems like trying to end violence by committing violence – because it is – she asserts that it is 'the only logical solution.'”

I expect there to be a reduction of these issues in some ways; I do not expect these things to be “ended entirely," and have never stated that I do. Likewise, those items (war, rape, and violence in general) are only a fraction of my reasons for advocating what I advocate. In fact, I'd say that they are among the lesser portions and reasons. The issues that men face, and men’s general socio-bio value, concern me just as much as those items, and I have many more reasons beyond all of the aforementioned things for advocating what I do. These elements comprise, despite the title of my book, only a small part of what I will be discussing in the contents of the book.

Additionally, I have stated that I do not espouse any violent means or methods for achieving my aspirations, and that is because I do not. I do not endorse killing, slaughtering, castration or anything else of that nature. I will explain what I do espouse in my book. What I say that I do not espouse is what I do not espouse, and thus, their statement of “because it is” is false and unsupported. There are ways to reduce a population over decades and centuries, and it would be an extremely gradual and complex process which would take centuries or generations, that would not involve any violence or violent means or systematic “killing.” The author’s assertion there that I advocate “ending violence by committing violence” was speculative, presumptuous and fallacious garbage, and on top of all of that, he/she began the statement with a misrepresentation of my views.

The writer, likewise, gave no real argument for why what I espouse is violent, did not accurately identify my true perspectives and tie them to any correctly identified violent means (merely saying that something is so does not make it so by default), and he/she based their statement there on a presumption that the point was self-evident, even though it was not due to clarifications that I had already made; clarifications, and prior statements, which nullify his/her baseless conclusion(s). Again, the author failed to even properly identify my views, and again, their assertion was nothing more than speculative, presumptuous and fallacious garbage.

“Terrifyingly, she has spawned a gaggle of followers that believe in selective breeding, male-only abortions, and an International Castration Day.”

Simplifications, generalizations, simplifications, generalizations, simplifications; this line only lists a few assorted items (partially based on assumption), and even got one entirely wrong. I, or we, if you prefer (since they mentioned my “followers”), do not “believe in” International Castration Day. I stated this in my interview with when I was questioned about it, and they even said as much directly in their article, which was’s very own source. Furthermore, my FAQ states it, I said it in my corrections post for VICE.coms article, and I am stating it again here now. Once again, the writer failed to identify and report my views properly, and again, failed to read and interpret his/her own source correctly.

From VICE.coms article (’s source, which they misinterpreted entirely):

“While she now derides International Castration day as silly, the internet had met The Femitheist.”

How could make this mistake when they were quoting directly from, and when’s article contradicted their reported statement, is beyond me. Perhaps this author from should do a little bit more reading before he/she posts libelous articles.

The author discusses and makes reference to ICD again after the line above, and again I say:

*I/we do not “believe in” International Castration Day.

See: my interview corrections post, my FAQ, this post, and’s article (A.K.A’s own source, which they misinterpreted and inaccurately reported on).

“Nothing says 'peace' quite like genital mutilation, eugenics, and murder. Oh, and slavery. There’s slavery, too.”

This line from’s article, like the others before it, contains incorrect information, contradicts my own statements and positions, and contradicts my answers in’s article (which was, again, their source). I do not, as I have said numerous times, endorse genital mutation or murder. In fact, I actually wrote a piece against male circumcision recently, and donated to an anti-male circumcision organization as well. Moreover, the mention of “eugenics” is a misleading, misrepresentative and presumptuous simplification (why this is the case will be made clear in my book).

As for me endorsing “slavery,” I have to wonder why it is that these libelers are unable to comprehend and fairly report that I directly stated that men would only do work if they volunteered. I explicitly said, in my interview with, that men would only do work “if they want to.” I also made reference to the fact that I wish to reduce the overall workload on all men. I desire that most labor, difficult and not, be carried out almost solely by women and machines. I seek to relieve or end labor-related burdens on men. I do not advocate any form of slave labor or “slavery by definition” for men. See "Problem 4.5" on my corrections post, linked above, for a more thorough refutation of these accusations that I “endorse slavery” (otherwise you'll be operating on incomplete information).

The “Like slaves?” question, as I noted in my corrections post, was not actually posed to me in the original interview. That question was only added into their published article later when they were dicing up my answers for flow before their piece went live. The author from took those lines from a far longer statement by me out of their original context and set them against something that seemed to contrast what I said for the purpose of riling up less attentive readers. People have attacked my answer to that question repeatedly since then, failing to realize that, not only was I not even asked that question originally, but that I also negated the notion that I advocate slavery in the answer right before it (both of those answers were originally part of one larger set of paragraphs).

People seem to not understand what “if they want to” means. Even with how’s article was set up, my statement directly above the “Like slaves?” question explicitly said that any and all work done by men would be voluntary. That is the meaning of the phrase “if they want to.” And, again, just to make this absolutely clear, I was not actually asked that question when I was being interviewed. I had already accounted for the possibility of being asked such a thing before the interview, which is why I included that statement in the first place, so that people would know that I do not endorse any sort of “slavery” for men.

With what I advocate, men would have to do far less work, and eventually, I would hope that they would have to do essentially no work or difficult labor at all. These things, by definition of the word slavery and every known notion of slave labor, are not slavery.

Yet again, this is misrepresentative garbage by’s original article just sensationalized some things in a few ways for the traffic, and I believe that the ways wherein they misled and confused people were unintentional, for the most part. The article by, however, is little more than a hit piece. It is utterly libelous propaganda, and they are spreading disinformation and outright lies for the sake of spinning a false narrative.

“Toby McCasker over at Vice decided to go boldly where probably no man ought to go (safety purposes) and conducted an interview to try and get a better understanding of all this hullabaloo. Due to the fact that it is probably one of the most terrifying things I’ve ever read – it’s like a combination of 1984, Brave New World, and the Communist Manifesto…but with 'feminism' – I’ve decided to include the interview in it’s entirety below.”

No “Feminism.” I don’t know how often I have to say this each day and week. I almost wish that Feminists would call me out, or at least bring more attention to the fact that I am not a Feminist, so that I don’t have to keep repeating this.

That most of my followers, friends and I are not Feminists is stated on every profile that I have, on my primary traffic locations, and I restate the fact in comments repeatedly (and frequently). I am not a Feminist, most of my friends are not Feminists, I do not subscribe to Patriarchy Theory or advocate it (I have my own terms), I do not argue in favor of the concept of Rape Culture, I do not read Feminist literature, I have never taken, and will never take, a gender or women’s studies course, because I feel that I could learn such things recreationally or on my own time, and thus do not need to take formal classes on the subjects, et cetera. I am not even a lesbian separatist. I am not a Feminist in any way, and no one in the mainstream would ever consider me one. Not even’s article stated that I am, and I never said that I am in any of my responses during that interview. All of this information has been readily available for nearly two years.

See my disclaimer page for more on this.

Additionally, I have never read 1984, Brave New World, or the Communist Manifesto (or the SCUM Manifesto, just for future reference). I have never read any of those works. What I write and state is what I think of, or am able to think of, from the science and history that I’ve researched.

This concludes my direct response to’s disinformation and propaganda piece (which they disguised as “reporting”). If they, and all of the other outlets that have shared or written about their libelous, misleading and propagandistic article, care at all about journalistic integrity or accurate reporting, they will all correct their lies and mistakes and re-report the truth and facts only.

Additional and Closing Thoughts:

Just as an aside: yes, I chose Criminology as my major, but not for the intellectual “challenge” or anything of that nature; I chose it solely due to potential for future availability (and I will be fine in that regard).

My primary interests are biology, genetics and history, and I have more than enough information presented in my posts on this site and in my comments or content elsewhere to prove it. I have taken classes related to those fields, and I've spent many hours for many months over the past few years, but especially the last two, studying, researching and reading on the subjects. Ad hominem attacks related to my sex, appearance, accent and age are not valid refutations, reasonable points, or proper argumentation, and if I were anyone else with more popular opinions, or if I just constantly railed against something simple like Christianity, people would not even bring such things up. But, with me, anything illogical, fallacious, irrational, misrepresentative, or just utter willful ignorance, obtuseness and lying are acceptable and fair game.

(Second aside: ageist hatred will die with time; such attacks are all merely ad hominem or speculative, and thus invalid.)

And, I would also like to note, as I wrap things up here, that things which have yet to be fully explained, but are in the notes for my book, are potential elements of the discussion that must be remembered. One cannot argue properly or objectively against something that they are not fully aware of. Thus far, I have stated what many things will not be, and when I state that something “will not be” a certain thing, that is what I mean. The particulars of what I actually do advocate will be fully explicated in my completed works, and everyone will know every detail in time, if they remain fair-minded and patient.

Inserting one’s own assumptions into the spaces in the details that I have left, and then arguing against those assumptions as if they are my actual positions, is intellectually dishonest. It is improper argumentation and fallacious reasoning, akin to Creationists inserting “God” as the true answer into every gap that scientists have yet to fill or explain fully or concretely with their theories, research and findings (in regard to the world or universe’s natural processes and laws). Assumptions and speculations are not valid bases for arguments, and they do not, and cannot, discredit portions of my positions which have not yet been fully disclosed or explained, or which people do not know at all.

I know how to reason, and I know how to be fair with the opinions and views of others. I know that logic is a mechanism, not a “foundation,” and I am aware that logic requires axioms and base principles and epistemic allowances. I know what attributes make two variables comparable, or alike, and what attributes don't. I know that correlation does not equal causation (or that two things being associated in some ways does not necessarily mean that one causes or leads to the other). I know what makes similar variables categorically different, comparable, or the same. I know what false equivalence is and when it applies. I know to research (because I have done it in posts) the information sources of statistics, and I know to scrutinize their methodologies (including their sample sizes), and so forth. I understand what researching objectively, reporting accurate findings, and arguing properly based on those findings requires, and I do it.

I am aware of a great deal about all of these things that, for whatever reason, a large number of those opposed to me seem to care little about; they feel that it is acceptable to disregard all of these principles, and to commit logical fallacies, when arguing against me. They assume, speculate, lie, libel, slander, defame, attack their own straw man arguments, refuse to listen, ignore clarifications, misinterpret purpose, refuse to research, refuse to truly become acquainted with what (and whom) they criticize, spew ad hominem and call it proper argumentation, et cetera. Hundreds of people do all of these things against me, and are praised for it by others who are also intellectually dishonest. They are biased when it comes to my work, because they personally feel that they dislike my positions, and so they have no qualms with knowingly engaging in underhanded tactics if it means that they can negatively impact me and my pursuits in some way.

Individuals and even collectives are misrepresenting me and attacking their own straw man fabrications instead of my actual positions in droves right now, and my clarifications and/or original words don't seem to matter all that greatly to a lot of these people’s readers and viewers, which is the problem with straw man attacks and disinformation and propaganda like that which be found in’s article:

“A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.”

A fair portion of the current attacks against me rely on the audience being ignorant or uninformed of my views. Many of my adversaries, such as, rely on the potential of their readers being entirely unfamiliar with me and my positions when they set out to corrupt how others perceive my perspectives and work. They know that, with that lack of familiarity, they can spin whatever false narratives they desire, and their lies will be believed. People who know me well would know what is wrong, for the most part, and can be seen now arguing against the irrationality and lies, but those who are not familiar with me and my work do not know what is right and what is wrong, and frequently never learn to distinguish, when claims or arguments by others are related to me, true from false information.

I've been combating and dismantling various disinformation campaigns for a couple years now. A large percentage of the people who oppose me today make it clear that they feel that logical fairness and intellectual honesty are only applicable or relevant to arguments or views which they favor or agree with. Logical fairness, proper argumentation and intellectual honesty are discarded by these people when they encounter perspectives, such as mine (in this case), that they dislike.

With me and my positions, due to how many feel about certain things that I believe, say or know, they distort and contort my words, misrepresent my views, don't care to research my writings at all, libel me, slander me, attempt to defame me, commit logical fallacies when arguing against me, refuse to be fair-minded when interpreting my work and perspectives, stop engaging in proper and rational skepticism when they see opinions from others on my views, and so forth. They utterly disregard general reasonableness and decency.

In a fair world, driven by ideals of integrity and rationality, these realities would not be how things work, and this should not be how things are here and now. I will not cease to combat liars, libelers, propagandists spewing disinformation, and anyone else who crosses my path and attacks me, especially if they are not telling the truth or reporting the facts. Because, that is what a fair and just world requires, and unlike most of those who despise and oppose me now, I am fair and just.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

NOTE III: To reiterate this once more, everything referenced above (and not yet mentioned) will be explained when my work is finished. Once people have the full information, they can take adversarial stances based on the truth and facts in whole (they can form objective opinions based on complete information). Not a moment before. I accept constructive criticisms, as I noted in a prior post, and all objections hereafter will be used to assist me with further refining ideas or adjusting for valid concerns. Anything that I have already covered or accounted for in my notes will be disregarded. And, be sure that you are objecting to my actual positions, and not to speculations, lies, or straw man fabrications, before you protest what I say, write, or do.

Proper argumentation involves and requires knowing exactly what someone believes to be true before objecting or attempting to construct refutations. It requires not assuming anything about the beliefs and/or positions of opponents, so that responses to them may remain clear, cogent, and as objective as possible. If these things are disregarded, then one's evaluations of the singular stances and/or perspectives of others will be fundamentally erroneous, deeply flawed, and otherwise invalid.

It's as simple as that.

NOTE IV: For the last two years, I have almost always been right when predicting the course/outcomes of my work:

1) In 2012, I said that I would gain support and supporters, and people asserted that I wouldn't, and that no one would ever support or “follow” me. And then, I gained support, and people began to follow me. I am exactly where I expected to be now in relation to these things; entirely on schedule.

2) In 2012, people said that I was done after my initial burst, and I said that I was only just getting started; in 2013, people made their claims of my demise again, and I said that I was only just beginning, that things were far from over, and that I would “rise” in 2014. And then, I did (or have), once again proving everyone who contended those things wrong.

I care about all people, genuinely and compassionately, regardless of whether they love me, hate me, agree with me or disagree with me. If I did not, I would not expend so much time and effort, generally to my own detriment, in what I do now, trying to fight for what I believe and know is right and just. Everyone should stand for what they believe in, so long as they remain fair, truthful and intellectually honest while taking their stand. Do not allow biases, impulsive reactions, or lying and deceptive propagandists to corrupt and control you. And, do not allow them to lead you from the paths of reasonable objectivity and intellectual integrity.

Relevant Reminder: Welcome, All Newcomers - This is an important post to read.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

RE: “The MRM Has No Ideology; It Is Anti-Ideology”


Some fellow (to summarize his lengthy comment) just told me that the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) has no ideology, and that the MRM is "anti-ideology," and that I don't know what ideology means, and thus I can't contribute anything to any discussion.

An ideology is "the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group." (see:

So, the MRM has no ideology? MRAs have no doctrines, no fairly common ideas, no similarly-held beliefs? The name "Men's Rights Movement" is a lie and the MRM is not a movement, the MRM is not a group comprised of individuals, many of which have highly similar beliefs and/or are against/for the same, or highly similar, things? They don't have terms that they like to use, some of which they "created" or have popularized (hypergamy, male disposability, rape hysteria, rape farming, et cetera). None of these are phrases commonly used by MRAs?

The MRM is not totally "anti-ideology" or "without an ideology," and neither are individual MRAs. The fact that so many people make these claims is proof that the propaganda of some MR organizations and MRAs has been relatively effective. The MRM is mostly against the ideologies of some other movements, groups and individuals (Feminism/Feminists, for example); no one in a movement or group with social or political beliefs or similarly shared objectives of any kind is almost entirely "anti-ideology."

Every group who fights for or against anything, by definition, shares common beliefs, doctrines, social theories and/or ideas, et cetera. They all have ideologies, the MRM has an ideology or ideologies, and MRAs have ideologies. They might be against some ideologies other than their own, but they are not entirely "anti-ideology" (because they have their own).

It is not I who misunderstands "ideology" or the MRM, it is the individual who asserted these things (whatever his name was); unless, of course, we're working with his entirely made up notions and definition of ideology. In which case, he might be right (excluding what ideology actually means and how the world really functions).

All one must do is look through MRA videos and sites, and the evidence of "ideology," by definition, can be found everywhere; as I stated above, the MRM is not "anti-ideology." MRAs have their own ideology, or ideologies, but are against the "ideologies" of some others (typically Feminists). There is a difference between being against a certain ideology, and being without one, or some, at all (which is what a general statement of "anti-ideology" implies).

All of the things stated above are both justified and true, by definition of the word "ideology" and the nature of the MRM.

Thank you all for reading; have a wonderful day!

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

P.S. Although people do often argue that the MRM "has no ideology" or "is not ideological," what the individual that this post refers to stated specifically was that the MRM is "almost entirely anti-ideological." What he fails to realize is that he was arguing that the MRM is against what it considers the "status quo," which is not the same as being "anti-ideology" or "almost entirely anti-ideological." The MRM has ideology, MRAs have ideologies, and some or many of them are just as susceptible to group-think insularity and myopia or narrow-mindedness as nearly every other collective/movement (all of this was somewhat aside from my criticisms anyway; my critiques were of what I considered harmful rhetoric or actions/statements, or things that seemed like they could be undertaken or carried out in a better way, and so forth).

P.P.S Additionally, the individual stated that, if the MRM were ever to gain my "approval," that would be indicative of things going terribly wrong with the movement. However, just as I do not dislike everything that Feminism does (only some things), I also do not hate everything that the MRM does, or that MRAs do, and I already approve of some of it, and of several MR organizations (Intact America, for instance, which supports men's rights but is not necessarily "MRM," I like quite a bit). Most of my MRA-related issues stem from AVoiceforMen and its activities, and the actions and words of a few MRAs on the internet. I am not black-and-white opposed to the MRM, or to Feminism.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Friday, August 15, 2014

Welcome, All Newcomers


Since my site has a lot of newcomers right now, I thought that I'd take a moment to go through some of the things that I've seen since the interview from VICE went live. I am pleased to say that I have received quite a few sound and decent objections to my statements from the interview (despite the mistakes that VICE accidentally made regarding some of my views, and the missing portions from my answers). That is what I always hope for when any sort of opportunity like this arises; constructive, or at least useful, criticisms. Many, of course, have been irrelevant, silly, straw-manning, or I've already accounted for/debunked them in my book notes, but there have also been some great ones too.

I'm going to go through a list of items in this post to reiterate a few things that I've stated in the past.

NOTE: To see what mistakes VICE made in their article, click here.

They have mostly corrected some of the major ones (not entirely, but mostly).

1) "You will never succeed; what you hope for will never come to fruition."
There is no true "failure" for me. I consider it not my loss, but the loss of all others, if people reject my offerings. Whether folks interpret what I write and state (to use other people's phrasings) as figurative, literal, or as works of fiction or serious proposals is irrelevant to me; so long as people are thinking about all of it (which many are), that is satisfactory. I will continue to advocate what I advocate, and as I've stated before, as long as I give everything my very greatest effort, I will be entirely pleased in the end.

2) Everyone and everything benefits me.

As the point suggests, many people have several opinions about how to deal with my supporters and I, and in truth, everything that everyone does benefits me in its own way. I know this now because I have been doing this for over 2 years and have seen how things play out (almost the same way each time; this time will be no exception).

I: Taking me seriously - This strengthens the resolve of my supporters, brings me many new supporters, and lends even more legitimacy to my ideas and mission.

II: Mocking me - This strengthens the resolve of my supporters, brings me many new supporters, and garners me support from people who were on the fence about me, because I take mockery well and those that mock me tend to be extremely hateful and belligerent about it (even when they're not, the outcome is relatively the same).

III: Ignoring me - This is one of the best things that people attempt, because the only folks who ignore me are those that hate me. Individuals who like me and my ideas are retained, and because of how much my messages have been spread now (sphere of influence), I continue to gain new friends, allies and fans, while those who ignore me do nothing to counteract that.

IV: Deeming me a troll - Due to how many (to use other people's phrasings) lengthy, thoroughly researched, and well-written pieces I've done, this is typically rejected full-stop by my supporters and friends. And, it also works to my benefit in the same way that III does, because it enables me and allows me to continue while those that hate me ignore me and shrug me off.

V: Misrepresenting me - This is the most harmful thing that people attempt, in truth, and it happens often, but it also lends legitimacy to the idea that my detractors are not intellectually honest or objective. In that way, it benefits me similarly to how I does.

VI: Providing me with valid criticisms - This is my favorite one of all. People see it as "debating" or "refuting" me, but that is not what it serves to do, because I do not engage in pointless debates that do not benefit me (they tend to be circular). I engage only in civil and productive discussions, and am not very social. Giving me valid criticisms helps me to further refine my ideas and debunk objections; so when you leave me a constructive critique, you are actually helping me out in the greatest possible way. Ergo, I would greatly appreciate many more of them.

a. Most criticisms lobbed at me are either based on misunderstandings related to my views, or they're irrelevant, silly or straw-manning. If I've already debunked a critique in my book notes, I ignore it (keep in mind that I have been at this for about 2 years, and what I'm advocating isn't exactly an easy sell, which means that I have to be extremely thorough).

b. The recent VICE article on me was only about 30-40% of the total interview, and they only used about 1/4 of each of my answers (many were greatly condensed or abbreviated in order to save on length), and thus, most objections to a lot of what I said were already accounted for in my original, full answers, or are already accounted for in my book notes.

c. I have had 2 years to think about and write on all of this, so 98% of the time, when someone asks if I haven't thought of something, or when someone uses something simple as a critique, I have already accounted for that prior, rendering the criticism null. I keep every objection that I find for my book notes and debunk them as time goes on, refining all of my ideas and concepts when valid responses arise. There have been many objections, and that has always been of great value to me. Again, as I said, keep them coming. It's easily the best way for me to fine-tune and improve my ideas (which will eventually be displayed in entirety when my book is complete).

d. Feel free to send me an orderly list of all of your objections to everything that I have ever said via email (

VII: Supporting me - This one is self-explanatory (obviously beneficial to me).

So, all of the above are essentially ways that you can help me if you desire (not directly asking, just extending a few suggestions). With the position that I'm in at the moment, there's really nothing that anyone can do that wouldn't benefit me in some way. I am now where I anticipated that I would be 2 years ago, meaning that I have lost detractors and gained many new friends, and continue to gain new and great friends every day, and so I am satisfied with that.

There's still a long ways to go, though, and I look forward to it.

3) "Dox her; report her; censor her!"

All of these things have been tried countless times over the past 2 years, and each attempt has failed, only resulting in strengthening the resolve of my fans and friends and garnering me more overall support. If you're thinking of doing any of this, you'll be wasting your time, and you're only going to benefit me in the long-run. Nothing can be considered now which could make me "go away" that hasn't been done already by hundreds of people before. I will continue doing what I have always done, and try as people might to "get rid of me," their attempts will continue to be in vain.

4) "She just does this for the money."

This has already been thoroughly debunked; I do have an optional donation link, but hardly anyone donates to me. I have no ads on my site or videos, and I won't be charging anything for my book with the intention of personally profiting monetarily. I have worked almost alone for essentially everything that I have right now in life, quite hard (as my friends will attest), but I care very little about money beyond viewing it as a necessary means of survival, and I certainly do not care about making it from any of my mission-related work. I don't really need a lot more money than I have right now.

5) "She just does this for attention."

This is actually a strange and somewhat silly accusation (rather obtuse even); like everyone who writes posts and makes videos, I hope that people will see my work, but I also do all that I do because I care about it. I have put a lot of time and effort into what I've done, and I've also sacrificed a fair amount by bringing the hatred of hundreds or thousands of people to me. There are far easier (and safer) ways to obtain simple "attention" than what I do, more "mainstream" or outrageous things that could be said that would be a lot more successful than what I do in terms of garnering "attention," and so the allegation truly doesn't pan out in the way that it's intended.

As most of my friends and fans will tell anyone who asks, I have spent (cumulatively) hours, days and months editing videos, researching, writing, et cetera, and so, demonstrably, I deserve about as much attention as the next person in my position. There are people far above me in terms of popularity who do quite a bit less.

Unless people want to assert that I am the only person who writes posts or edits videos in hopes that other people will see them, this point is invalid and petty as a criticism. And, as I said above, I spend hours and days collectively over months editing, researching and writing. I could've merely pretended to believe in things that would've made me a lot more popular than I am right now (considering the quality of work that I do), and most people would've loved me, or would love me now, but instead I chose to fight for what I believe in and know is right.

People seem to forget that I was doing almost exactly what I do now before I had any friends or supporters, for many months, in fact. Whether I have one, ten or ten-thousand viewers, I will continue to do what I do now for all time.

The thing that people fail to understand is, I am not a troll or provocateur; I am simply someone who is speaking and fighting for what they truly believe in. I consider myself an observer, not a participant, and an architect, not an activist. And, I always strive to maintain fair civility, reason and understanding, even in the face of irrationality and animosity.

I will be more than happy, as I noted here, to have civil and meaningful discussions with anyone who is interested, and I will reply as best and as often as I can. For those who are interested, feel free to stick around.

And please, keep the objections coming, but just be sure to try to make them instructive, constructive and comprehensive, because those are the kinds of critiques that are the most conducive to my work.

Thank you all for reading.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

NOTE II: Might add more to this post later.

NOTE III: As a reminder, any profile or page not listed on this site or my YouTube channel does not belong to me.

Social Links:
YouTube (Subscribe)
Twitter (Follow)
Google+ (Follow)
Facebook (Like)

Some Assorted Works to View:

Post 1 | Post 2 | Post 3 | Post 4 | Post 5 | Post 6

Video 1 | Video 2 | Video 3 | Video 4 | Video 5


New Video:

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Temporary Post (For the VICE-readers, et al.)

Well, as I anticipated, there's a lot of misguided attacking taking place right now (which is fine, I am used to that). I'm sure if you're reading this today (8/14/14), there's at least a 50% chance that you've come from VICE's recent article on me, and so you can go here to see my corrections for their piece (they made a few mistakes).

Instead of just waiting until this wave of angry folks passes as I normally do, I'd like to attempt to channel a bit of this negativity into something productive and useful, and the only way that I can do that is through direct and prolonged interaction with a few of you (if you are one of the newcomers that I made reference to above). Everyone won't grow to like me, of course, but hopefully I can talk to some of you that are replying to me now and become better acquainted with you. It'd be nice to have civil discussions instead of just experiencing the rage-storm in passing.

Here are the links to my social media profiles, where I am most active: [Subscribe] - Prolonged content and interaction. [Follow] - Frequent interaction (almost daily). [Follow] - Frequent interaction and content (post here a lot). [Like] - Purely major content updates; little interaction (I don't operate it).

I've gone through this sort of thing about five times now, and I've never tried to capitalize on the opportunities in the sense of actually reaching out to the people who come to me with angry objections, some of which are valid complaints (that I will account for). I typically don't attempt this sort of thing because people come like this in large groups, and as one person alone, I can't reply to everyone as much as I, or they, would like.

However, if you follow me on all/some of the profiles above, where I am most active, then we can hopefully become better acquainted and have some interesting and mutually-beneficial conversations. I can't converse all the time, or with everyone constantly (because I am fairly busy), but I will do my best.

Additionally, you can also follow me on this site (where my most serious work is done) by following my posts via email, or by signing up as a member to the site. Either of these things can be done by clicking "Show Post Archive [+]" on the homepage. The options will come up after that is clicked.

I look forward to interacting with whoever among you decides to remain.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

NOTE: I will eventually remove this post, but while people are around and still flooding in, I figured that I'd give diplomacy a shot instead of just doing little with it as I normally do.

NOTE II: You can also contact me at, but my inbox was already overloaded before the VICE article went up, and now even more so, and so the odds of me replying there at the moment are less than in other places. Private messages on YouTube are entirely acceptable as well.

Welcome, All Newcomers: Click Here

Social Links:
YouTube (Subscribe)
Twitter (Follow)
Google+ (Follow)
Facebook (Like)

Some Assorted Works to View:

Post 1 | Post 2 | Post 3 | Post 4 | Post 5 | Post 6

Video 1 | Video 2 | Video 3 | Video 4 | Video 5

New Video:

On the VICE Interview (Corrections)


UPDATE: Since I posted this, VICE has corrected some of the mistakes that they made regarding my views (that was supposed to happen before their article was published, but there was some confusion). Not all of the things below were corrected for in their piece, of course, and the article was still only about 1/3 of all of my answers, but I greatly appreciate that they made some of the corrections and thank them sincerely nonetheless. I added a (*Mostly Fixed) marker to the one that they sort of resolved, but didn't make as clear as I would have liked, and a (*Fixed) marker to the one that they actually corrected. The others are still generally as they were before (flawed).


Although I thank Toby for being a gracious interviewer (and hope that this corrections-post won't offend), the recent article on me from VICE did misrepresent a few things (with some inaccurate corrections), and even took a couple of my answers out of context, or left out context essential to their meanings. I don't believe that any of that was done maliciously, but just in error.

The piece written by VICE used about 1/3 of my total answers, and only about 1/3 of each actual answer (I assume that this is for a length requirement, and so I've really got no qualms there), but I am going to clarify on a few of the more erroneous things here so that people aren't misinformed on my views. You'll notice that some things stated about me in the article seem to conflict with my answers, and that is because they got a few details wrong.

NOTE: Keep in mind that the questions shown in the article are not the same questions that I was asked while being interviewed (they changed them for flow, I assume), and the punctuation-style and British English style of spelling were done by them, not me (e.g., I said “the math has,” not “the maths has”). Some of the questions were similar, but they were not all the same ones.

Problem 1 (*Mostly Fixed): “Her argument was, although she no longer prescribes to it, that only through mass public castration and the reduction of the male population to between 1 and 10 percent of their current number we can approach 'true equality'. According to her, testosterone (and by dangling extension testicles) 'are the primary cause of their violent behavior.'”

My argument was actually never really that mass castrations should be performed, because ICD was a non-serious piece. My FAQ has stated this for quite some time, and so have I (I don't advocate castration, and even donated to an Anti-Circumcision charity and wrote a piece against circumcision/MGM recently), and I also stated as much in the original interview.

This was the original exchange regarding ICD:

Q: Hi Femitheist. So, International Castration Day. I’m a guy, by the way. That bother you?

A: No. I completed that post in about five minutes or less. It was merely an expression of some brief anger. I took quite some time to finally drop it entirely because, despite never truly advocating it as an ‘actual solution’ for anything, I attracted several supporters who genuinely adored the idea, and I was afraid of losing their support. But I now have numerous terrific friends and supporters, and they simply love me as a person and don’t care what I do or don’t espouse, for the most part, and so that type of fear-of-loss has vanished. Just to make it clear, I was never serious about that post. It’s still something that comes up frequently and the recurrence of its mention has become monotonous, which is why I’ve urged people in the past to stop discussing it, because it’s a dead issue.

Q: Yet you still maintain the male population should be reduced to 1 – 10%. Why would this be “better for the human race,” as you put it?

A: I believe that ‘conventional equality,’ with a 50:50, female-to-male ratio, is an innately inferior system and way of doing things. Essentially, my ideas lead to men being made a special class, a far more valued class, having choice of myriad women due to the difference in sex-ratio. That is my intention. Men would be made more valuable, and their quality-of-life would be dramatically improved. They would have a subsidised existence, if you will; akin to going on an all-expenses paid vacation that lasts from birth to death.

I do still prescribe the pop-red, but ICD was never a serious bit, and still isn't.

Problem 2 (*Fixed): “According to her, testosterone (and by dangling extension testicles) 'are the primary cause of their violent behavior.'”

This one comes (I believe) from the ICD post, but no question about testosterone came up in the interview, and I had told them prior to the article being published that the things in the ICD post were not serious. Likewise, this contradicts comments that I've made and even my FAQ, which states the following (because I am often asked this):

Q: “Do you believe that testosterone causes aggression or violent behavior?”

A: No (or at least not alone). Many studies have shown that higher levels of testosterone do not necessarily lead to more aggressive behaviors. There is still much research that needs to be done in this area before any absolute conclusions can be drawn, but for the time being, my answer is no.

So, in other words, that is actually not “according to me.”

Problem 3: “Some would argue it would be a dystopian world because it wouldn't be free in the present conventional sense. However that is misguided. It will be utopian because it will be a world almost without conflict where people cooperate and are treated properly within a well-engineered and long-forged system. If everything is great for almost everyone the point is null. Survival and socio-organic wellbeing are the most important elements in life. Diversity of principles and standards is only necessary in a world of multiple nations, cultures, societies, and religions due to fear of oppression. So, how is this world any better? Because some people have potential opportunities to do certain things?”

All of my responses were shortened to about 1/3 or 1/4, but their abbreviated version of my response above leaves out a bit of important context, and without the following context, the questions that I asked at the end seem sort of abrupt and out of place.

My actual answer to the question regarding ambitions was:

“Some would argue that it would be a ‘dystopian world’ because it wouldn't be ‘free’ in the present conventional sense.

However, that is incorrect/misguided; it will be eutopian (eutopia = good place, utopia = no place), because it would be a world almost without conflict, where people cooperate and are treated properly within a well-engineered and long-forged system. If everything is great for almost everyone, then the point is null.

Survival and socio-organic well-being are the most important elements in the processes of life. Diversity of principles and standards is only necessary in a world of multiple nations, cultures, societies, religions, and so forth, due to fear of potential ‘oppression.’ Unification and amalgamation are the keys to eutopia and prolonged/superior survival; or, a system wherein no true or widespread ‘oppression’ can arise or occur.

If one takes into consideration all of the elements of my future projected-world, without viewing each facet merely through a modern cultural lens, one will realize that such modern ambitions tend to be unnecessary (a product of today's system), and even in today's system, millions frequently fail to achieve the majority of their ambitions.

So, how is this world any better? Because some people have potential opportunities to do certain things (that are almost required for survival in this world)?

Nonsense. Even in this system, there is a great disparity in the availability of such supposed life-opportunities, and that is coupled with an immense lack of the benefits that I propose for men. This system's norms are an inferior way of doing things.

The purpose of living is merely to persist and perpetuate our species, and if someone is willing to give you all that you will require to survive and live comfortable, simply because you exist, then you have already achieved all that truly matters.”

And as an aside: yes, I draw a distinction between “eutopia” and “utopia,” and prefer the former because it is more accurate in terms of what I discuss and propose. They changed my spelling to the latter.

Problem 4: “Q: But don’t men have value beyond breeding?
A: If technology has not advanced to a point where labour can be done without men, the few men that are necessary for said labour will be allowed to work on the outside of the reservations to complete whatever tasks necessary—if they wish.”

This question above is not the question that I was asked where that came up, and it sort of positions my statement as if I had implied that manual labor is men's only other value, or as if it was the first thing that I thought of.

Problem 4.5: “Q: Like slaves?
A: Not as slaves, simply as workers performing a duty, in the same way workers today do. Only without the need for monetary reimbursement as they would have no need for such a thing. This would be highly monitored and regulated.”

The “like slaves?” question from the article was not actually posed to me in the interview; it was set up in VICE's piece that way to take that part of my reply out of the context of the original answer. The following question and response shows everything in full (with the original question that I was replying to).

The original exchange:

Q: “OK, so, would the men be kept in isolation like stud horses?”

A: I seek to create a dual-tier society; not a bottom-and-top society, but one in which the two sexes live as different and parallel halves, neither beneath or above one another, but with their own divorced contexts and circumstances.

I believe that we must remove men from the community, and place them in their own specific sections of society, akin to subsidized or state-owned and funded reservations, so that they can be redefined and, with them, the rest of the world. We can make not only men safer, but women as well. And, by subsidizing said reservations through the state, we can provide men with activities, healthcare, entertainment, shelter, protection, and everything that one could ever require in life.

This will remove all forms of conventional inequality from society. By reducing the number of men to ten percent of the total population, their sociobio value will be raised. They will live out their lives there happily and safely, and “male disposability” will be a thing of the past.

And, if by this time, technology has not advanced to a point where labor can be done without men (which is highly unlikely given the realistic time-frame), the few men that are necessary for said labor will be allowed to work on the outside of the reservations to complete whatever tasks are necessary (if they wish). Not as slaves, but simply as workers performing a duty, in the same way that the workers of today do, only without the need for monetary reimbursement, as they would have no need for such a thing. This, too, of course, would be highly monitored and regulated.

I wasn't implying there that being able to perform manual labor is men's only other value (that question was a part of the article, but in the interview exchange, it was not in the context that the article portrays it as).

And, what I described in terms of labor is not what a “slave” is; I specifically stated that the work would be voluntary. Slaves, by definition, are forced to work. The work being entirely voluntary directly negates all concepts of labor “slavery.”

Problem 5: “After posting it on YouTube she stepped out for a coffee. Returning home a few hours later, she found that all gnashing male hell had broken loose.”

This is actually not what I stated happened; I said that I posted it to my blog, made a text video which I posted to YouTube, and then I went to sleep (that was what I told him). When I woke up the next day, it had been hyper-shared over the night. I didn't “step out for a coffee” (although I suppose that sounds more sophisticated than simply going to bed).


The title of the article is misleading and also grammatically incorrect (but the latter is irrelevant to this); I don't believe that the pop-red will solve everything. There are many problems in this world that stem from things aside from that which would require, obviously, other solutions. Even with the reduction, there would be many problems to solve, which is why that is only going to be a small part of what my book covers. I also never stated that it would solve every problem (or “everything,” as they put it), because it won't. It's a solution that I prescribe for some issues, but not for all of them.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, many questions that I answered (some which I wish could've made it in) were not included, and the questions portrayed in the article are not the exact questions that I was asked (although some of the context is still fairly matching). Likewise, about 2/3 or 3/4 of my answers were left out, which is reasonable when the overall meaning is kept if they've got a length requirement, but for a couple of them there was vital context missing, or they were presented in an improper context.

Essentially, and just to be clear, VICE's article contains only about 30-40% of the total interview; most of it was not about the 90:10 ratio, but that was the focus of their piece. Many criticisms of my statements, which have come since their post was published, stem from the fact that they abbreviated my answers in the article and misrepresented some of my views. I accounted for essentially every objection to my responses that I've seen this far in my full/original replies. This outcome is what happens when interview answers are condensed and stripped of some context (confusion and irrelevant rebuttals).

I don't want to bother VICE too much about these corrections (even if some of them could've been avoided by actually portraying what I said in my original answers), and I thank Toby again for the interview and his cooperative kindness, but I felt that these clarifications had to be stated quickly so that I'm not forced to combat misinformation forever.

If anyone ever wants to see the entirety of my answers, they'll all be available when I finish my book, because it will cover everything in full; and, if you dislike or oppose my true answers and views, be sure that you are opposing my actual perspectives, and not accidental misrepresentations or falsehoods.

All objections henceforth will be used to assist me in further refining and building my ideas.

Thank you all for reading.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

Social Links:
YouTube (Subscribe)
Twitter (Follow)
Google+ (Follow)
Facebook (Like)

Temporary Additional Post: Click Here

Welcome, All Newcomers: Click Here

Some Assorted Works to View:

Post 1 | Post 2 | Post 3 | Post 4 | Post 5 | Post 6

Video 1 | Video 2 | Video 3 | Video 4 | Video 5

New Video: