There are a number of ways, I’m not inclined toward authoritarian measures. An incentive structure could be built to encourage genetic interventions (at least once that technology matures). Just kind of like some natalists want to encourage births in general. It would have a pretty gentle effect at most but again, I’m aiming for overall harm reduction. The reduction of male births isn’t the goal, its a tool to reach a goal.

In addition, a cultural movement could apply soft social pressure and normalize the practice of aborting boys and trying until a couple gets a girl. This would be difficult though not impossible. Cultural movements that started as a minority opinion pop up pretty frequently these days.

If we were to get authoritarian with it though, of course things get both easier and harder. Easier in that you could just mandate things, in reality this would probably just create black market situations and cause more harm than good. It might be possible to put something in drinking water to significantly decrease the chances of male births as well if you want to validate the conspiracy theorist types, though you could just be open with it and get people to accept it.

You mean you’re here to propagandize.

Do you know anything? What’s your alternative?

Men are not born inherently more violent than women. That’s a sexist assumption from the get and invalidates your entire reply to be honest.

I never said they’re more inherently violent on some biological level. I don’t think it matters if they’re “inherently” more violent. If men are statistically more violent and that is just a cultural effect, my solution would still be more humane than ideas like a prejudicial ride share filter.

And if your rebuttal is “We need to fix men’s culture” my immediately question is how? Because that’s not a proposed solution: My idea and the ride share filter are explicit and specific policy. They can be compared, their effects can be studied or if not studied, their assumed effects can at least be rationally predicted.

Acknowledging the real outcome of the patriarchy that men are encouraged and allowed to use violence to further their own wants is not the same as agreeing that men should be killed or boys shouldn’t be born.

Fewer boys being born is absolutely not the moral equivalent of killing men. And I know the whole “Kill all men” line itself is a (usually) a troll. Engaging with that is boring.

That said, how do we systematically discourage men from committing violence exactly? Obviously with the goal of reducing harm. That is, in a way that is more humane, time efficient, viable, than either other solution we’ve already discussed here? I don’t think this is a serious avenue to be explored to be honest, because I never hear any concrete solutions being offered. I’m open to being wrong. I want to be wrong because the idea that we can get men to just chill out with the violence and make everyone happy sounds legitimately like the best option, I just don’t think that we can do that.

I just recognize a violent and sexist idea when I see one and yours is extreme enough that it makes me think you’re doing it to further provoke gender wars on this site.

Provoke a discussion. Like I said I’m bored at work. I don’t care about gender wars. I’m more of an equal opportunity hater. And lover.

If you must know, I avoided the “bear vs man” discussion. Now that was just a means to provoke gender wars bullshit.

Population control and eugenics tend to be bad ideas.

I mean to be honest I’m not in favor of “population control” but I am basically a soft anti-natalist. I think we should stop reproducing entirely.

As for eugenics, I never said things would be manipulated along racial/ethnic lines, and that’s typically the area of moral outrage when it comes to eugenics. And what with a few people in this very comment section pointing out that it’d be unacceptable to let white people say they’re “uncomfortable” or “feel unsafe” around black people… well…

Like, you are being inconsistent at that point. Is viewing men as intrinsically less safe and validating that with prejudicial filters on ride sharing against them acceptable or not? If its acceptable, then just… simply not having more men is just a win/win. No one gets hurt, they’re just not born. And its justified because you can point out that its literally acceptable to apply what amounts to an economic sanction of already living men, some of which rely on their income to live a life worth living or to even live at all, on the basis that they are just more dangerous. This idea is more harmful than what I am proposing. It will result in more suffering.

What you don’t like is the emotions you feel when I suggest an idea that seems alien to you and have to mentally compare it to a worse idea that sates bitter catharsis or validates your desire to insulate and segregate for the aim of emotional comfort.

My idea is not me framing “birthing fewer boys” from some emotional perspective of “We should do it because we hate boys.” I’m suggesting it because I legitimately believe it would be more humane than what we’re doing now with everything, let alone considering this ride share filter.

I’m still convinced you’re here to make feminists and women who support safety measures for other women look sexist with your “provocative” views on men.

I’m here because I have no self control. I keep telling myself I’ll stop arguing on social media because it just makes me miserable but boredom at work just completely over takes my restraint. Why are you here?

I’m not trolling, though perhaps I am being provocative.

That said, I would be unironically in favor of the policy I am proposing.

I’m also open to better systemic policy propositions.

I’m a dude.

I’m just saying it straight. Both men and women would be happier if we had fewer men added to the population.

It’d make everyone happier.

A significant portion of women don’t seem to even like men very much so they’d not miss them. Men and women would get murdered less by other men. Fewer wars. Less violence. Less rape. Incels wouldn’t exist I can tell you that much. Rightwing politics would significantly lose influence.

Yeah, we need fewer men in general.

I think the issue people are taking is with collective punishment and validating prejudice.

Yeah, lets reduce the number of incels systematically. We can start by reducing the number of male births.

It’d be a win for everyone if we had fewer male babies.

Yeah, we should just have fewer men in society in general. Reduce the number of male births.

We should have fewer male babies.

Perhaps I should try for a different word to describe it or modify it in some way. I will concede it ends up entering into semantic debate sometimes (if the discussion even reaches this point) and I find that kind of discussion pretty dull.

Rocks have no agency because they aren’t conscious or contain intelligence.

Characters in books are fictional autonomous beings and are often described as having agency or having no agency on the basis of their level of influence on the story. That’s what I’m describing in a sense when I use the word, but applied to real conscious beings.

As said in another response, “bad” is subjective. But its also objectively a commonality conceptually in the human mind, as it has evolved. “Bad” just is.

It can be bad because I think its bad.

I’ll admit, when I discuss morality in other context’s (especially lately as I’ve lost my patience) I’ll use the word “evil”. In reality though, the word I mean is “bad” but with an extreme emotionally charged intensity.

I don’t believe in “good” in the sense of divinity, the word “evil” is opposite of divinity. Divine vs Evil is mysticism.

I do however believe in good things and bad things. Technically subjective, but objectively they are things contained with in human minds. Positive and negative experiences and consequences. Good things are things we want and need. Bad things are things we avoid and hurt. This applies to us individually and collectively.

So sure, I don’t believe in divine vs evil. I only believe in good vs bad.

Because I love discourse. I love discussing these ideas. (Though sometimes I also hate it)

Agency is one’s ability to influence your environment. Agency feels good. So does solving puzzles and helping people.

I think the information in my mind has been processed and resulted in me typing up that (and this) response. “Choice” is a red herring. Or at the very least, “choice” is just the result of my brain processing input or more concisely, choice is just another word for output.