3 ms·
I'm totally ignorant in all of that, but for me it just looks like out of sudden (historically) we have way too many males. They used to be killed during huntin
by ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
I'm totally ignorant in all of that, but for me it just looks like out of sudden (historically) we have way too many males. They used to be killed during hunting, wars, competition with other males. Since 1945 we haven't had that. Men became not as hot commodity. This is the motor of the current social changes, isn't it?
For example: only 40% of all Homo Sapiens Sapiens males that have ever lived were able to have offspring. Compared to 80% females.
- watwut 7y agoYour statistics would have 2 women to 1 male making the "norm is one male one female in marriage with children" completely impossible absurd standard.
- rjsw 7y agoDoesn't have to be at the same time, think of the case of a first wife dying during childbirth and father remarrying and having more children.
- ChaosDegenerate 7y agoThis "absurd" is a common knowledge since we started doing DNA testing. Each and every time the DNA tells us that the subject has twice as many female ancestors than male ancestors. This is science, DNA testing. There is buch of research done in this regard. Just google it up. The reason you didn't hear about it even though the genome has been decode for more than 15 years now? Well when science doesn't play well into the current marxist idea of society, somehow we just call it "absurd" and turn our backs on it. Sad.
- MrBeansForReal 7y agoYes, we have known it since human genome was decoded. The DNA tests always indicate that a person who took the test had twice as many female ancestors than male ancestors. There is no other way than twice as many females procreating than males for it to be true. I hope you are not one of the "DNA deniers"... leftists/marxists are capable of dismissing all types of knowledge to still believe in their rel... err... ideology.