Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I want to share a thought that has been swimming in my mind for some time now. http://www.angryharry.com/esMoreWomenThanMenRequired.htm
Here is a long but interesting article that looks at the pros and cons in some detail.
It is only a matter of time until the gender of children can be selected. My own beliefs that a future where the male:female ratio is 1:3 stem mainly from:
1. When it comes to crime, violence, war and general delinquency, males are clearly more involved in such things than are females. And they seem more prone to engaging in them at an early age. Boys like guns. Girls like dolls.A reduction in the proportion of males is therefore likely to reduce the amount of mayhem that generally takes place.
Less males = Less violence, crime and mayhem, Less aggressive competition among men for women, Far fewer relationship crimes; domestic violence, rape etc, Far fewer wars, More help with domestic chores, More freedom to go out to work or to stay at home for women, Far better job opportunities,

2. Given that sex and intimacy are both extremely powerful motivators for men, a surfeit of females would also likely lead to a reduction in sex-assault, domestic violence, rape, prostitution and a host of other associated evils. The counter-argument that women are just as bad as men but that they simply tend to use different mechanisms to achieve their wicked ends is almost certainly a valid one, but unless it is the case that women are actually worse than men in provoking disorder, disharmony and mayhem, then altering the gender ratio in their favour is not going to make matters worse.

3. Technology. Manual labour is no doubt being replaced in developed countries - muscles by machines and intelligence and skills by computers. Women can carry out the same tasks as men nowadays. Furthermore women need to devote less of their lives to child-rearing fue to the introduction of artifical wombs and will move up into the workplace.
Also men have become much less important than they once where when it comes to progressing the societies in which they live.
These are just excepts from the article and there is much more in it.

I wouldn't believe all those bullshit sources that say the Y-Chromosome is fading. Maybe it is maybe it isn't. It is irrelevant as it would take 1000s of years which doesn't affect us. Most of it is feminist BS too.
Thats another reason why more men would be of benefit. It would satisfy feminists who believe men are parasites etc. but thats not the sort of crap we are using as arguments here though the likelyhood of the future turning out with a female surplus is certainly an issue which we could discuss here without unpleasantries.

Here is another article which unlike the other you should read at your own risk as it is biased to an extent and the humor is not female friendly:
http://www.angryharry.com/esTheyearis2052.htm
Basically asking who would actually oppose such a future

What do you think? Do you think a surplus of females to human society would be of benefit? Don't just give one sentence answers - explain your ideas...

But then who would we watch on T.V for football?






Seriously, the 1/3rd of men left would just rise up and kill those power-hungry be-yotches.

Women being able to do the same work as men....ha





Why don't women need an umbrella?















There's no rain between the kitchen and the bedroom.


(I'm kidding, I'm not really sexist)

why couldn't Helen Keller drive?


























She was a woman

Most women I know can't drive worth a shit.lol

But is it so bad really? It just means that there will be 2-4 woman for each man!

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
Most women I know can't drive worth a shit.lol

But is it so bad really? It just means that there will be 2-4 woman for each man! I don't think women that haven't gone through whatever process it is that ends their period for good (Menopause I think) belong in politics, and with less men, that means younger and more women in politics, and the backstabbing increases 40x. Yes, I make these conclusions by looking at my mother, my high school, and KMC's females.

edit

Come on guys, I think its safe to say women can do anything men can do. Its individuals who are better/weaker than others. OK, there are certain things men can generally do better than women and things women are better suited to than men as a whole but thats not the point here. The point is that things men were suited to in the past which demanded use of their natural physical stength are not as useful today and so are not as useful to society.
And please explain why the 1/3 men would rise up against the more abundant women Sithsaber 408? As explained in the articles it is logic that the less men there are the more power they would have over women rather than vice-versa. And this is so as well as all the good advantages of less men e.g. less war etc. It is explained in articles. Besides the pressure for such a future society would come not only from extreme feminists but also from men in general - for various reasons as well as ones listed in my thread post and the articles

Originally posted by Akira99

And please explain why the 1/3 men would rise up against the more abundant women Sithsaber 408?


http://gallery.brawl-hall.com/data/media66542/11/Back_to_the_Kitchen.jpg

Originally posted by Akira99
Come on guys, I think its safe to say women can do anything men can do. Its individuals who are better/weaker than others. OK, there are certain things men can generally do better than women and things women are better suited to than men as a whole but thats not the point here. The point is that things men were suited to in the past which demanded use of their natural physical stength are not as useful today and so are not as useful to society.
And please explain why the 1/3 men would rise up against the more abundant women Sithsaber 408? As explained in the articles it is logic that the less men there are the more power they would have over women rather than vice-versa. And this is so as well as all the good advantages of less men e.g. less war etc. It is explained in articles. Besides the pressure for such a future society would come not only from extreme feminists but also from men in general - for various reasons as well as ones listed in my thread post and the articles

You contradicted yourself in the first two sentences.

i think it would be a bad idea, because there would be less man for the women, its pretty much guaranteeing that every guy has a girlfriend but not every girl would have a guy, and so it would tempt women to tempt men to cheat, and then the wife would get murderously angry and then everybody would die, the end...

So true...

Why don't women need a watch?


















There's one on the stove!

I think that will come handy...they feel superior of been needed.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
So true...

Well, that will become much easier then, eh?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that will become much easier then, eh? Yes, Yes it will!

I still have my woman type...I don't take them all.

Monogamy is overrated anyways....

Originally posted by sithsaber408
http://gallery.brawl-hall.com/data/media66542/11/Back_to_the_Kitchen.jpg

If your point was "women belong in the kitchen," I'd disagree as a lot of women nowadays would rather have the option of choosing wether to devote the majority of their time in raising children or to go to work on a long term basis. A future with 2/3 women would make this possible far beyond what we have today. And also contrary to what you might think more women doesn't mean they'd have absolute power over the men - quite the opposite when you think about it. Seeing as you've not read article: heres the excerpt:
If there were more women than men then women would be more powerful than men and they would oppress them in various ways.

Well. There are a number of points to be made here.

Firstly, it is not the case that a larger group of people will always be able to exert undue power over a smaller group of people. Indeed, there are numerous examples both present and past where minorities, even small ones, have wielded huge power over those in the majority.

Current examples of this would include the way in which various minority groups such as feminists and gays have wielded power over non-feminists and heterosexuals.

Similarly, men have managed to exert power over women even when their numbers have been drastically reduced e.g. through war.

And, of course, the various governing elites that have existed throughout history have wielded enormous power over their majority subjects.

Secondly, it is very often the case that power accrues to those people in the minority precisely because they are in the minority. Indeed, the more rare are types of desirable persons or objects, the more do they tend to be valued.

If, for example, there is a shortage of plumbers, then their value rises - as do their earnings.

And the same sorts of things would be true if there was a relative shortage of men.

As such, the argument that a small surfeit of women would necessarily reduce the power of men seems somewhat tenuous.

Indeed, the very fact that men seem so 'expendable' in many circumstances today surely supports quite strongly the notion that there are just too many of them.

Thirdly, given that women wield their power mostly through manipulating men, then it follows that if there are fewer men for them to manipulate then this power will be correspondingly reduced.

Fourthly, it seems reasonably clear that psychology determines to a very large extent the way in which people acquire and exert power. And it is through psychology that people can be influenced. And so, for example, even one person alone can exert huge power and influence over the way in which people conduct themselves.

For example, when the Pope or the President speaks, millions of people will listen.

In summary, the power and influence of a particular group does not correlate particularly well with its size.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
Most women I know can't drive worth a shit.lol

Same here.

Like the saying goes: Women drivers, no survivors.

Originally posted by ~Forever*Alone~
i think it would be a bad idea, because there would be less man for the women, its pretty much guaranteeing that every guy has a girlfriend but not every girl would have a guy, and so it would tempt women to tempt men to cheat, and then the wife would get murderously angry and then everybody would die, the end...



Then maybe more women should go off to war since they're all endowed with a natural instinct to dispose of what they don't need.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Same here.

Like the saying goes: Women drivers, no survivors. Just about. Sad to say each time I have been rear ended it was because some chick was on the phone instead of paying attention to the road. Tell me again why EVERYONE is allowed to have a license?

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
Tell me again why EVERYONE is allowed to have a license?

That is something that I will never understand and eternally wonder.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
Just about. Sad to say each time I have been rear ended it was because some chick was on the phone instead of paying attention to the road. Tell me again why EVERYONE is allowed to have a license?

Oh my God, Wicked?! That's only the HALF of it. You forgot (while on a cell) putting on makeup and smoking a cigarette while trying to change a CD or the radio!

Originally posted by BobbyD
Oh my God, Wicked?! That's only the HALF of it. You forgot (while on a cell) putting on makeup and smoking a cigarette while trying to change a CD or the radio!

Am I the ONLY female that doesn't do that? Seriously while driving KEEP YOU GOD DAMN EYES ON THE ROAD. Put your makeup on before getting in the car/truck or put it on before pulling out. Same goes for cd player. Make sure you pop in a cd you can listen to with out changes for at least an hour.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That is something that I will never understand and eternally wonder. I agree. Love Oklahoma's new little law on that. You can get your License at 18, but before that you have to have a permit for three years.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
Am I the ONLY female that doesn't do that? Seriously while driving KEEP YOU GOD DAMN EYES ON THE ROAD. Put your makeup on before getting in the car/truck or put it on before pulling out. Same goes for cd player. Make sure you pop in a cd you can listen to with out changes for at less an hour.

I nominate Wicked for President!

Originally posted by BobbyD
I nominate Wicked for President! Nope, I know my place in life and I am not one for Power. I enjoy being a wife and a Mother to much. Tho I must say at this point in time ANYONE could do a better job of it then Bush.

I think Hitler had a better grasp of things then Bush seems to have at the moment...


I WANT CLINTON BACK!

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
Nope, I know my place in life and I am not one for Power. I enjoy being a wife and a Mother to much. Tho I must say at this point in time ANYONE could do a better job of it then Bush.

Too bad. You're perfect! ...wisdom and humility.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Too bad. You're perfect! ...wisdom and humility. I don't think anyone is perfect for that Job. But personally I agree with keeping women out of office. Once a month we would go on a bombing spree.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
I don't think anyone is perfect for that Job. But personally I agree with keeping women out of office. Once a month we would go on a bombing spree.

Indeed. Women's decision making too closely tied to their emotions.

When men care is because they have female backup...simple. Poor bastards are the ones to pay miserably in the end.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Indeed. Women's decision making too closely tied to their emotions. I second that.

Regardless of their looks they're lucky.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
I second that.

There's nothing with that either. ....is what it is.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
Most women I know can't drive worth a shit.lol

But is it so bad really? It just means that there will be 2-4 woman for each man!

That's an awesome statement. From a woman no less.

I like you.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
That's an awesome statement. From a woman no less.

I like you. As well you should!

I think a future with more women than men would be a bad thing. That's just going to result in even more people on the planet and that is the last thing we need.

I think at the point it is now they should make a licences for having kids.lol

I hate to think she's with me for a reason that only she knows...no matter what you hear from her lips or movements. Trust Me.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
I think at the point it is now they should make a licences for having kids.lol

I think we need to cut back to the bare minimums for a few generations.

Animals are stronger than Humans but we are still preferable...hmm, weird!

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I think we need to cut back to the bare minimums for a few generations. I vote for no more then two children per couple.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
I think at the point it is now they should make a licences for having kids.lol

Holy crap, more genius!

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Holy crap, more genius! I try not to over heat my brain more then I have too.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
I try not to over heat my brain more then I have too.

Such a rare quality these days. I believe people overheat their brain too much and everyone has turned stupid as a result.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Such a rare quality these days. I believe people overheat their brain too much and everyone has turned stupid as a result. I agree with you on that. Its the main reason I state my opinion and then drop the subject, no use to argue over something for hours and be mad.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
I agree with you on that. Its the main reason I state my opinion and then drop the subject, no use to argue over something for hours and be mad.

I'd like to have that ability, but for some unknown reason I get into arguments anyway. It's like being sucked into a black hole.

Besides, sometimes someone really smart comes along and gets me to see the subject differently. Or vice versa.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
I'd like to have that ability, but for some unknown reason I get into arguments anyway. It's like being sucked into a black hole.

Besides, sometimes someone really smart comes along and gets me to see the subject differently. Or vice versa. You means its like a train wreak, you just can't stop from watching.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Holy crap, more genius! Good with the ladies, eh?

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
You means its like a train wreak, you just can't stop from watching.

Alot of things are like a train wreck. 5 car pileups on the highways, prison sodomy videos, senior citizens...let's not get into that.

Kindly get back on topic people...

Originally posted by Akira99
Kindly get back on topic people...

Ok....

As long is its a high woman-to-man ration, then I'm happy.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ok....

As long is its a high woman-to-man ration, then I'm happy.

Originally posted by Akira99
Kindly get back on topic people...

She IS on topic.

Wicked has proved the theory wrong, women shouldn't be the dominating force in ANY part of anything, they weren't meant for it.



Except decorating of course, which only a few ghey guys are good at.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA


It was only a joke.


Seriously though, the scenario is flawed.

Assuming that the power to choose your babies sex is not too far off, what is it that makes you think everybody would choose a girl baby?

I know all of the environmental factors that you posted (speaking to Akira, here), and they all are pretty much true, about men committing most crimes and so on....


But most men (and many women) want a son.

I can't see that all the males in the world will suddenly give up on the idea of a son to carry on the family name and line, just because of a few statistics. (no matter how accurate they may be)


Unless this scenario is meant to include many millions of women getting artificially inseminated and choosing to give birth to girls (sounds like a killer sci-fi movie ), then its a moot point.


Just because the people would have the ability to make most of the next generation girls, doesn't mean that it's what they would want to do or would do.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
So true...
That's a truncated version.

At the end, it says "A good wife knows her place".

P.S. "Roll" is not equal to "role".

P.S. "Roll" is not the same as "role".

Originally posted by FeceMan
That's a truncated version.

At the end, it says "A good wife knows her place".

P.S. "Roll" is not equal to "role".

P.S. "Roll" is not the same as "role". ..Roll as in you roll on an Item in WoW.. as in Roll Dice..god no one gets it.

Originally posted by Akira99
I want to share a thought that has been swimming in my mind for some time now. http://www.angryharry.com/esMoreWomenThanMenRequired.htm
Here is a long but interesting article that looks at the pros and cons in some detail.
It is only a matter of time until the gender of children can be selected. My own beliefs that a future where the male:female ratio is 1:3 stem mainly from:
1. When it comes to crime, violence, war and general delinquency, males are clearly more involved in such things than are females. And they seem more prone to engaging in them at an early age. Boys like guns. Girls like dolls.A reduction in the proportion of males is therefore likely to reduce the amount of mayhem that generally takes place.
Less males = Less violence, crime and mayhem, Less aggressive competition among men for women, Far fewer relationship crimes; domestic violence, rape etc, Far fewer wars, More help with domestic chores, More freedom to go out to work or to stay at home for women, Far better job opportunities,

2. Given that sex and intimacy are both extremely powerful motivators for men, a surfeit of females would also likely lead to a reduction in sex-assault, domestic violence, rape, prostitution and a host of other associated evils. The counter-argument that women are just as bad as men but that they simply tend to use different mechanisms to achieve their wicked ends is almost certainly a valid one, but unless it is the case that women are actually worse than men in provoking disorder, disharmony and mayhem, then altering the gender ratio in their favour is not going to make matters worse.

3. Technology. Manual labour is no doubt being replaced in developed countries - muscles by machines and intelligence and skills by computers. Women can carry out the same tasks as men nowadays. Furthermore women need to devote less of their lives to child-rearing fue to the introduction of artifical wombs and will move up into the workplace.
Also men have become much less important than they once where when it comes to progressing the societies in which they live.
These are just excepts from the article and there is much more in it.

I wouldn't believe all those bullshit sources that say the Y-Chromosome is fading. Maybe it is maybe it isn't. It is irrelevant as it would take 1000s of years which doesn't affect us. Most of it is feminist BS too.
Thats another reason why more men would be of benefit. It would satisfy feminists who believe men are parasites etc. but thats not the sort of crap we are using as arguments here though the likelyhood of the future turning out with a female surplus is certainly an issue which we could discuss here without unpleasantries.

Here is another article which unlike the other you should read at your own risk as it is biased to an extent and the humor is not female friendly:
http://www.angryharry.com/esTheyearis2052.htm
Basically asking who would actually oppose such a future

What do you think? Do you think a surplus of females to human society would be of benefit? Don't just give one sentence answers - explain your ideas...


Yeah, this is some serious feminist bullshit. I've never seen anything that even vaguely implies that women can do anything as well as us, let alone better, and what's this crap about us being less important than we were? Women need to learn some damned manners.

Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
Yeah, this is some serious feminist bullshit. I've never seen anything that even vaguely implies that women can do anything as well as us, let alone better, and what's this crap about us being less important than we were? Women need to learn some damned manners.

Too many paragraphs for you? I understand. It wasn't meant to be a current political debate, just a hypothetical one. Too bad for you.

But in your defense. it wasn't a very good one to begin with...

More woman !!!!! great!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Nogoodnamesleft
Yeah, this is some serious feminist bullshit. I've never seen anything that even vaguely implies that women can do anything as well as us, let alone better, and what's this crap about us being less important than we were? Women need to learn some damned manners.

Au contraire my friend this is not feminist bullshit. Not in the very slightest. First of all read the 2 articles and you will be a VERY happy man as you see what an amazing world could come of this. This was written by a very very clever Men's rights activist. Now after you have done this explain why more women and less men would make us less important than we were. We are currently as unimportant as is possible! Surely if there wer eless men our value to women would increase? As a matter of fact the article explains how having more men than women actually weakens Men's power in society because they are so easily manipulated by women . So if there were more women then there would be less men to manipulate

And Capt Fantastic was right. If you read the article it goes into detail about the steps that would be taken for such a future. If we wanted we could potentially start tomorrow!

Originally posted by JOE NUNEZ
More woman !!!!! great!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I think a future with more women than men would be a bad thing.

are you gay?

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
are you gay?

is that rhetorical?

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
are you gay? He is.

Originally posted by Lumanix
He is.

I am?

I read this in the Body and Soul paper that comes with The Times on Saturday:
SEX-SELECTION of babies in cultures that favour males could be the downfall of us all, says a University College London report. The paper, in the Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences, says an epidemic of men would leave millions of guys unmarried, creating a "glowing number of young men with little outlet for sexual energy." It adds: "This could lead to increased antisocial behaviour and violence ... and has worrying implications for organised crime and terrorism." Oh boy.

Yeah for once the usual feminist BS that infects The Body And Soul paper has a point. Its like they are un-doing themselves