I want to share a thought that has been swimming in my mind for some time now. http://www.angryharry.com/esMoreWom...MenRequired.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 [maybe even now I'm not sure] until the gender of children can be selected. My own beliefs that a future [maybe even 50 years from now] 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 [not far off if not here already] 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 [read the article first before making instant assumptions etc.] - explain your ideas...
Last edited by Akira99 on Aug 30th, 2006 at 07:40 PM
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.
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 - [not just The Men's Movement] for various reasons [e.g.WickedTexasMomA noticed right away] as well as ones listed in my thread post and the articles
Last edited by Akira99 on Aug 30th, 2006 at 10:47 PM
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...
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.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 30th, 2006 07:33 PM
Attachment: 
