4 ms·
As long as males have to compete to woo females, the natural order will persist. Every species on earth shows us this: "males are disposable, females matter".
by screye 6y ago
As long as males have to compete to woo females, the natural order will persist.
Every species on earth shows us this: "males are disposable, females matter". A 1M:100F ratio can revive an extinct species. A 1F:100M ratio is a blood bath. There are zero incentives for powerful men to help underperforming men, while women have neither natural nor sociological pressures stopping them from helping other women.
For better or for worse, we are barreling towards a point where male underachievement won't be ignorable. More than 50% of women will have to 'settle' for a man with worse career prospects. Scarily enough, if women choose to continue acting oblivious while wielding their primary evolutionary bargaining chip (¯\_(ツ)_/¯) to their fullest, then at least a couple of generations of men will waste away before a proper equilibrium is reached.
Ofc, this is a hypothesis that leans too heavily into our animalistic tendencies and their stranglehold over all societal developments. I also don't want this to come off as an MRA rant. Just a few ideas I wanted to put out there.
- machiaweliczny 6y ago> while women have neither natural nor sociological pressures stopping them from helping other women Doesn't pass reality check IME
- jl2718 6y agoThe population ratio is irrelevant. The relevant ratio is ‘actively seeking reproduction in the same age and social class’. Nearly all men in the progressive career class are actively seeking reproduction, and very few women. This is because, in this social class, the opportunity cost of reproduction is low for men and high for women. It is massively the opposite in low social class. I think you might be shocked to experience gender dynamics in largely poor and uneducated communities. The desperation for suitable male mates is palpable.