[Samseau]

(04-05-2012 09:07 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

(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.

Bolded the part you missed

[speakeasy]

If you've ever wondered why men have a higher mortality rate:

http://www.rense.com/general95/whymen.html

[kosko]

(04-05-2012 11:12 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(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.

I think your 15% number is a bit high. A old thread bounced around numbers and SF the "mecca" of homos was in the single digits. Toronto has something along the liens of 25% but the biggest issue here is that the homo population holds political and economic weight and influences how the City is run. I do not think that is the case in places like New York which equally has a sizable population.

[Excelsior]

(04-05-2012 09:07 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

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.

The RatioFactor blog explained this quite well, but I'll outline it further here.

When birthrates decline, the absolute number of young females and males declines-this is correct.

The wildcard here is the previous generation of men. Because birth rates have declined, this generation of men will be larger than the current younger one.
Women tend to prefer older men, with average age gaps throughout the west tending to hover at around 3-5+ years in favor of older men. What this means is that older men get first dibs on younger women. Those 25 year old women are, for the most part, most likely to get snatched up by 28-30 year old men.

When you live in a society with declining birth rates, that number of 28-30 year old (or older) men is higher, resulting in more competition for younger men. There are more older men around for them to compete with (and largely lose to) for women their age, and there are fewer younger women available due to decreasing birth rates. Younger women (who, again, generally prefer these older guys) have a much larger pool of these older guys to choose from in a society with declining fertility, since the male population from prior years was larger.

When birth rates are increasing from year to year, things improve for younger men because the older men who always have an edge over them are relatively fewer in number compared to the number of younger women. Their only other competition is other young guys, which is preferable.

The west is in a unique situation, because its birth rates have declined so dramatically in the past two to three decades. This has made the situation for young western men today significantly more challenging. We have far more older men to compete with than our parents did.
This situation is fairly unique in history, and may provide quite a bit of the explanation for the explosion of porn and other interesting internet-based and largely male dominated trends among youth today.