Post: #1

We always hear how bad it is in China with the aborting of females, but this article details how it's not much better for men in younger age brackets in Western countries.

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/08/...women.html

The natural sex ratio is 105 men born to every 100 women. It took thousands of years for nature to work out the right ratio to take into account for premature male deaths. It used to be that males had higher rates of infant mortality and died off earlier due to wars, aggressive behavior, accidents, etc. But as technology has reduced premature deaths, we are seeing an oversupply of men.

Quote:Beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s, sex ratios tipped over from male scarcity to parity and then to a relative excess of males. In 1991, plurality of males is clear in the age combinations when first marriage normatively occurs, and this situation will persist through the end of the century. (Pedersen, 1991)

I think the rise of the PUA/Game movement is directly correlated with the increasing competition caused by skewed ratios. Game or not, there are simply going to be a lot of guys left out in the cold.

Post: #2

Random Fact from Sperm Wars. Alpha men have more male children on average than females babies... How? It's a mechanism in the women's vagina after sex where Y chromosone carrying sperm are promoted over X chromosone sperm during fertilization. According the book, U.S Presidents had significantly more (at least 60%) male childen than female children. I think it was the same for CEO's as well. Haven't read the book in a while, but it's something along those lines.

Also, metropolitan areas tend to have surplus females (especially in the East Coast cities of the USA). And: women from rural areas and small towns are more likely to migrate to the big cities than their male counterparts. Which works in our favour.

Post: #3

(04-05-2012 04:00 AM)P Dog Wrote:  Random Fact from Sperm Wars. Alpha men have more male children on average than females babies... How? It's a mechanism in the women's vagina after sex where Y chromosone carrying sperm are promoted over X chromosone sperm during fertilization. According the book, U.S Presidents had significantly more (at least 60%) male childen than female children. I think it was the same for CEO's as well. Haven't read the book in a while, but it's something along those lines.

Also, metropolitan areas tend to have surplus females (especially in the East Coast cities of the USA). And: women from rural areas and small towns are more likely to migrate to the big cities than their male counterparts. Which works in our favour.

I don't doubt your statistics, but it's interesting that the last three US Presidents have all had daughters only. Maybe there is something to the notion that Western leaders are getting more effete.

Post: #4

(04-05-2012 04:28 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 04:00 AM)P Dog Wrote:  Random Fact from Sperm Wars. Alpha men have more male children on average than females babies... How? It's a mechanism in the women's vagina after sex where Y chromosone carrying sperm are promoted over X chromosone sperm during fertilization. According the book, U.S Presidents had significantly more (at least 60%) male childen than female children. I think it was the same for CEO's as well. Haven't read the book in a while, but it's something along those lines.

Also, metropolitan areas tend to have surplus females (especially in the East Coast cities of the USA). And: women from rural areas and small towns are more likely to migrate to the big cities than their male counterparts. Which works in our favour.

I don't doubt your statistics, but it's interesting that the last three US Presidents have all had daughters only. Maybe there is something to the notion that Western leaders are getting more effete.

Too small a sample size.

Post: #5

Quote:This male surplus varies by age bracket. When Davis and van den Oever (1982) examined the ratio of single men to single women in nine developed countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Hungary Japan, Norway, and Yugoslavia), they found male surpluses up to and into the early 30s:

Single Males per 100 Single Females, by Age Bracket

15-19 years old ----- 114.3
20-24 years old ----- 168.1
25-29 years old ----- 177.6
30-34 years old ----- 133.2
35-39 years old ----- 103.2
40-49 years old ------ 55.7
50-59 years old ------ 39.5
60-74 years old ------ 32.4

That was in 1982!!!

No wonder things are so harsh for men today.


It seems the direct consequences of feminism are:


1. Women live selfishly and date men purely for pleasure.
2. Women do not reproduce as much because children take away from that pleasure.

Therefore

3. Fewer young women are created in each subsequent generation, giving total power to women.

Post: #6

(04-05-2012 08:11 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Therefore

3. Fewer young women are created in each subsequent generation, giving total power to women.

That may be true for the middle and upper class. But the poor are still fucking and popping out babies like crazy!!

Post: #7

(04-05-2012 08:11 AM)Samseau Wrote:  It seems the direct consequences of feminism are:


1. Women live selfishly and date men purely for pleasure.
2. Women do not reproduce as much because children take away from that pleasure.

Therefore

3. Fewer young women are created in each subsequent generation, giving total power to women.

Point 2 is the reason the feminism is on it's deathbed. The feminist birthrate is a lot lower then the average woman, as their ideology is passed onto their daughters, their size becomes smaller. Google searches for feminism have declined heavily since 2000.

Point 3 makes no sense to me.

Post: #8

(04-05-2012 08:38 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 08:11 AM)Samseau Wrote:  It seems the direct consequences of feminism are:


1. Women live selfishly and date men purely for pleasure.
2. Women do not reproduce as much because children take away from that pleasure.

Therefore

3. Fewer young women are created in each subsequent generation, giving total power to women.

Point 2 is the reason the feminism is on it's deathbed. The feminist birthrate is a lot lower then the average woman, as their ideology is passed onto their daughters, their size becomes smaller. Google searches for feminism have declined heavily since 2000.

Point 3 makes no sense to me.

Supply and demand. Less women available makes the few bitches around more desirable and powerful.

Post: #9

I wonder if the skewed ratios contribute to male homosexuality, which seems to far outstrip female homosexuality.

Post: #10

(04-05-2012 08:38 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 08:11 AM)Samseau Wrote:  It seems the direct consequences of feminism are:


1. Women live selfishly and date men purely for pleasure.
2. Women do not reproduce as much because children take away from that pleasure.

Therefore

3. Fewer young women are created in each subsequent generation, giving total power to women.

Point 2 is the reason the feminism is on it's deathbed. The feminist birthrate is a lot lower then the average woman, as their ideology is passed onto their daughters, their size becomes smaller. Google searches for feminism have declined heavily since 2000.

Point 3 makes no sense to me.

Fewer women having children means the next generation will have fewer young babes. Get it? Men are only attracted to women close to their prime, i.e. 16-30, but women will date men from the ages of 18-50.

There needs to be lots of young babies being created or else there will not be enough young women to go around.


Although this can't be the only reason the ratio's are so skewed; I'm sure immigration (both legal and illegal) brings in more young men than women.

Post: #11

While I think it's definitely a factor, I suspect that the de facto polygyny in effect has an even bigger effect. Chicks can go weeks and months without having sex, while guys are constantly on the hunt. Or, to put it differently: Go out to a bar, and you see 50 men and 50 women. How many of those men are ready to bang an attractive member of the opposite sex (say 80th percentile attractiveness, between 18-25 years of age) that night? And how many of those women would do the same?

It's crazy, because you figure that things like videogames have mopped up lots of omegas on the market. But polygyny and obesity have more than made up for that.

As for obesity, doctors are starting to come around to what I've been saying, that there are far more fat women than men, and that the BMI threshold of 30 for 'obese' status for women is way too high. Here a doctor says that the threshold for obesity for women should be lowered to 24 and for men to 28. As I've said elsewhere, there are twice as many fat women as men, and changing the BMI threshold for obesity as the doctor recommends would swiftly reflect that, instead of the bullshit the CDC et al currently publish, saying that there are roughly equal numbers of male and female fatties.

Post: #12

(04-05-2012 08:50 AM)assman Wrote:  I wonder if the skewed ratios contribute to male homosexuality, which seems to far outstrip female homosexuality.

For the first time in my life I'm thinking perhaps homosexuality is a socially beneficial thing, so long as it doesn't involve me. If male homosexuality is at a higher prevalence than lesbianism(as is the case), then it at least takes some of the excess cock off the market.

So, it's okay to be gay!

Post: #13

(04-05-2012 10:21 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 08:50 AM)assman Wrote:  I wonder if the skewed ratios contribute to male homosexuality, which seems to far outstrip female homosexuality.

For the first time in my life I'm thinking perhaps homosexuality is a socially beneficial thing, so long as it doesn't involve me. If male homosexuality is at a higher prevalence than lesbianism(as is the case), then it at least takes some of the excess cock off the market.

So, it's okay to be gay!

Now that's looking on the bright side. Never thought of it that way. The same reasoning could be applied to guys that get sex changes.

Post: #14

(04-05-2012 10:21 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 08:50 AM)assman Wrote:  I wonder if the skewed ratios contribute to male homosexuality, which seems to far outstrip female homosexuality.

For the first time in my life I'm thinking perhaps homosexuality is a socially beneficial thing, so long as it doesn't involve me. If male homosexuality is at a higher prevalence than lesbianism(as is the case), then it at least takes some of the excess cock off the market.

So, it's okay to be gay!

I have recently started to question whether homosexuality is entirely due to genetics. Maybe the Lesbians are (partially) right and it is due to some other factors like life experiences, political expression and so on.

The problem with saying that it is "genetic" is that in practice it is actually extremely "dysgenic". For reasons that are obvious. Also, the issue with situational homosexuality (like in a prison), is not really properly explained. Rather, it is explained away by those who are married to the idea that it is inborn.

So, it may well be that some men are gay, and women lesbian, not so much because "that's who they are", but because that is the best option they have available to them.

But in any event. I think the reason big cosmopolitan cities are so good for game is that not only does the the male:female ratio already favour men, but in addition many of the men there are gay.

Post: #15

(04-05-2012 11:05 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  But in any event. I think the reason big cosmopolitan cities are so good for game is that not only does the the male:female ratio already favour men, but in addition many of the men there are gay.

Depends what city. I think it's just a few major cities on the east coast where women outnumber men. But even then, I think they are talking about ALL age groups. If you only look at women in their prime years 18-30, I'm sure the ratio still show an oversupply of men in that bracket. Sometimes wildy so. It's even worse in West coast cities. And that doesn't even factor in how many guys in their 30s, 40s and 50s are still trying to get at 18-30 year old women.

The only city with a gay male population significant enough to be socially relevant as far as the ratio factor is concerned is San Francisco, where about 15% of men are gay.

Post: #16

what there is is an oversupply of solid, decent looking and not insane guys in the western world.

go abroad and you meet alotta weird/questionable/sometimes dangerous/not-ok guys, but they still get some pretty hot girls from their own country cuz thats the natural order of things.

Post: #17

There is a blog for that:

http://ratiofactor.blogspot.com/

Post: #18

(04-05-2012 12:50 PM)Roosh Wrote:  There is a blog for that:

http://ratiofactor.blogspot.com/

This is a really, really, excellent blog. I recommend everyone who is interested in this subject to read the entire blog.

It's short, easy to read, and jam packed with all the relevant information.

Post: #19

(04-05-2012 12:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 12:50 PM)Roosh Wrote:  There is a blog for that:

http://ratiofactor.blogspot.com/

This is a really, really, excellent blog. I recommend everyone who is interested in this subject to read the entire blog.

It's short, easy to read, and jam packed with all the relevant information.

Did you see the article about DC?

Washington, D.C.'s Single Women Are Nation's Happiest

Quote:Also, what I like about DC is that here guys seem to think I am way cooler than I actually am.

If they're the happiest then DC men must be the most miserable

I agree. Great blog. I'll be spending some time reading it.

Post: #20

(04-05-2012 08:53 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 08:38 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 08:11 AM)Samseau Wrote:  It seems the direct consequences of feminism are:


1. Women live selfishly and date men purely for pleasure.
2. Women do not reproduce as much because children take away from that pleasure.

Therefore

3. Fewer young women are created in each subsequent generation, giving total power to women.

Point 2 is the reason the feminism is on it's deathbed. The feminist birthrate is a lot lower then the average woman, as their ideology is passed onto their daughters, their size becomes smaller. Google searches for feminism have declined heavily since 2000.

Point 3 makes no sense to me.

Fewer women having children means the next generation will have fewer young babes. Get it? Men are only attracted to women close to their prime, i.e. 16-30, but women will date men from the ages of 18-50.

There needs to be lots of young babies being created or else there will not be enough young women to go around.


Although this can't be the only reason the ratio's are so skewed; I'm sure immigration (both legal and illegal) brings in more young men than women.

This doesn't make sense because fewer women having children means the next generation will less fewer children of both sexes. A fall in the fertility rate does not change sex ratios. It doesn't matter if the absolute number of females in the population declines, as long as their size relative to the males stays the same.

And immigration has always been predominately male, even in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Post: #21

(04-05-2012 08:11 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:This male surplus varies by age bracket. When Davis and van den Oever (1982) examined the ratio of single men to single women in nine developed countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Hungary Japan, Norway, and Yugoslavia), they found male surpluses up to and into the early 30s:

Single Males per 100 Single Females, by Age Bracket

15-19 years old ----- 114.3
20-24 years old ----- 168.1
25-29 years old ----- 177.6
30-34 years old ----- 133.2
35-39 years old ----- 103.2
40-49 years old ------ 55.7
50-59 years old ------ 39.5
60-74 years old ------ 32.4

That was in 1982!!!

No wonder things are so harsh for men today.


It seems the direct consequences of feminism are:


1. Women live selfishly and date men purely for pleasure.
2. Women do not reproduce as much because children take away from that pleasure.

Therefore

3. Fewer young women are created in each subsequent generation, giving total power to women.

This is the harsh reality of the "western" world we live in today.
To Point #1 women are holding out for the knight in shining armour and they want to enjoy life like men until it is too late. Then they can't understand why men don't want them.
To Point #2 I am convinced that single mothers hate raising children by themselves, alot of them can't wait for the children to grow up so that they can catch up on there lost youth.

There are way more obese women than men, you notice that you see more fat women/skinny men combinations than fat men/skinny women combo.

Post: #22

It seems to be changing though. My impression is that all my friends who have kids seem to have daughters - I noticed this quite some time ago.

This article here, in fact, claims the male birth rate has been declining since the 70's. Declining Male Birth Rate Baffles Scientists http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/141...cientists/

Keep yourself healthy and fit and things just might start getting really interesting as you enter your 40's and 50's.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #23

(04-05-2012 10:23 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  This article here, in fact, claims the male birth rate has been declining since the 70's. Declining Male Birth Rate Baffles Scientists http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/141...cientists/

Didn't read, but it makes sense. Even for a given set of genes, the actual expression of those genes is influenced by our environment.

If our bodies are picking up on cues that indicate the environment has a low female:male ratio, it would be advantageous for one's sperm to be tilted toward carrying the X chromosome. Such a trait could have been selected for, relative to a trait that always produces 50/50 X and Y chromosome bearing sperm, over the course of human evolution, which involved periods of warfare (high female:male ratio) and relative peace.

Post: #24

(04-06-2012 12:19 AM)assman Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 10:23 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  This article here, in fact, claims the male birth rate has been declining since the 70's. Declining Male Birth Rate Baffles Scientists http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/141...cientists/

Didn't read, but it makes sense. Even for a given set of genes, the actual expression of those genes is influenced by our environment.

If our bodies are picking up on cues that indicate the environment has a low female:male ratio, it would be advantageous for one's sperm to be tilted toward carrying the X chromosome. Such a trait could have been selected for, relative to a trait that always produces 50/50 X and Y chromosome bearing sperm, over the course of human evolution, which involved periods of warfare (high female:male ratio) and relative peace.

But it would take many thousands of years for our DNA to make this adjustment on its own. The only way to get ratios back into balance in the short term is through medicine. The government could also give financial incentives for women not to abort baby girls.

I hope the feminists and SPLC lurking on this site realize that the rise of the game industry isn't some effort of men to revert back to cavemen. It's a reaction to the realities of the increasing competitiveness in the sexual marketplace. How can they blame men for wanting to learn game? If there's a tight job market, you have to boost your skills to get a job. It's no different with game.

Post: #25

(04-06-2012 01:13 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 12:19 AM)assman Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 10:23 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  This article here, in fact, claims the male birth rate has been declining since the 70's. Declining Male Birth Rate Baffles Scientists http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/141...cientists/

Didn't read, but it makes sense. Even for a given set of genes, the actual expression of those genes is influenced by our environment.

If our bodies are picking up on cues that indicate the environment has a low female:male ratio, it would be advantageous for one's sperm to be tilted toward carrying the X chromosome. Such a trait could have been selected for, relative to a trait that always produces 50/50 X and Y chromosome bearing sperm, over the course of human evolution, which involved periods of warfare (high female:male ratio) and relative peace.

But it would take many thousands of years for our DNA to make this adjustment on its own. The only way to get ratios back into balance in the short term is through medicine. The government could also give financial incentives for women not to abort baby girls.

Thousands of years is a gross exaggeration. Major changes to our DNA can happen in little as 10 generations. Evo and Proud (who you linked to in the OP) described this using the example of French Canadians and how the age at which their women was first able to give birth declined by 4 years (relative to France) from colonial New France to the present day, because it was selected for.