Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:05:35 UTC No. 16252733

>>16252722
1. You normally have an excess of expendable things. That's how it works.
2. It's not "if it were true," it IS true and it influences every aspect of male life. Everything about how men live is determined by the fact they are expendable. This is why women and even other men view you as either a tool, a weapon, or a waste of space. This is why a woman with your problems will get sympathy and you'll get told to harden the fuck up. This is why you will never have anyone show you genuine love in the way a woman would. Despite men's jokes about women being household appliances, you will be loved only for services provided, and when you can't provide them anymore, you will be cast aside because you no longer have any value. If you ever have children, you will become an ATM and if you dare say anything about how your job sucks, every woman will attack you, even your own mother. You are on this planet to work, work, work, fight, kill, and die when you can't do your job anymore. If you ever expect more, you will only condemn yourself to misery.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:17:50 UTC No. 16252744

>>16252733
Based black piller dropping truth nukes.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:20:21 UTC No. 16252747

>>16252722
If it wasn't 50/50 then children that were closer to 50/50 than the current ratio would reproduce more on average bringing it back to 50/50

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:23:00 UTC No. 16252750

If fewer males were born, then each male would get to produce a disproportional number of offspring. If that were true, then it would be in the selfish evolutionarily interest of each creature to create more male offspring. So the ratio always stays around 50%.

If you're asking why society doesn't just choose to abort males, that's a different question. In that case, who would do all the work? Women just want to hang out and talk all day, and don't want to work. Society would collapse.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:29:18 UTC No. 16252756

What species have skewed sex ratios at birth?

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:34:41 UTC No. 16252759

>>16252733
>>16252744
Samefag

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:40:39 UTC No. 16252763

>>16252750
>then it would be in the selfish evolutionarily interest of each creature to create more male offspring.
Doubt.

Some genes produce more (fe)male offspring than other genes. If most males don't reproduce then genes that create more women outcompete genes that create more men. For example: men who create 2 girls and 1 boy have more grandchildren than men who create 2 boys and 1 girl. Where am I wrong?

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:43:41 UTC No. 16252768

>>16252763
a single male could father hundeds of offspring so having two sons and one daughter instead of one son and two daughters could leave you with an order of magnitude more grandchildren as long as both males are highly successful

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:45:38 UTC No. 16252772

>>16252722
>Shouldn't there be less males born if most are unnecesary?
no, the opposite would happen. there would be an excess of males to expend.
good on you for realizing that evolutionarily, humans are not designed for either sex to be expendable.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:59:22 UTC No. 16252788

>>16252772

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:08:55 UTC No. 16252801

>>16252772
>humans are not designed for either sex to be expendable
except they are, because only 40% of men reproduce but 80% of women reproduce, so most men are easily expendable

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:13:07 UTC No. 16252804

>>16252768
>as long as both males are highly successful
That's the premise I'm doubting. In a society where every 2 women reproduce with 1 man there's more certainty in getting 2 girls and 1 boy than vice versa because even when your 2 boys do have reproductive succes then there are other boys who don't reproduce at all. Now the successful men continue to reproduce relatively more men but that doesn't equalize the sex ratio because genetic lineages that reproduced unsuccessful men and successful women will evolve to reproduce relatively more women. I guess that means that 2:1 ratios are perpetuating converting to 1:2 ratios and vice versa? So that's how you get an equal amount of men and women even when more women than men reproduce?

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:18:58 UTC No. 16252810

>>16252801
That figure is derived from DNA analysis of prehistoric populations. I very much doubt that such a large difference exists today.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:20:01 UTC No. 16252811

>>16252801
Quite literally survivor bias

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:28:04 UTC No. 16252822

>>16252810
Today it's much worse. 50% of women don't want to reproduce, e.g. voluntarily get sterilized or abort a pregnancy. The remaining 50% only want to reproduce with the top 20% of men. That means 80% of men are involuntarily excluded from reproduction.

(This is about the white population in Europe and America. Maybe the situation is different in Africa or India.)

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:28:59 UTC No. 16252823

>>16252733
>If you ever have children, you will become an ATM
>pampering your children is... le bad
>dare say anything about how your job sucks, every woman will attack you, even your own mother.
Quite literally doesn't happen, you're generalizing your personal experiences.
Brown people like you shouldn't breed anyway.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:42:25 UTC No. 16252832

>>16252733
Based black-piller.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:42:35 UTC No. 16252833

>>16252722
I consider this to be dysgenic because it implies that while dysgenic male genes are weeded out, the female ones end up procreating. In a perfect eugenic world, you'd have a century of female surplus, a good case study on this is Russia post WW2 - where the balance of power between sexes became skewed to favour male and thus weeded out a lot of their ugly women - followed by a century of male surplus to weed out ugly males - like now. Then you rinse and repeat till humanity achieves aesthetic perfection.

Female dysgenics will have to be solved in the nearest future, because, unlike males, they don't naturally get weeded out unless there's a male shortage like in Russian case study, and even then, they can easily get some idiot drunk enough to get "oppsie" pregnancy. Don't even get me started on plastic operations.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:20:46 UTC No. 16252878

>>16252833
a womb is a womb, dysgenic or otherwise. If an alpha breeds them, it's still overall eugenic.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:26:28 UTC No. 16252887

>>16252810
>That figure is derived from DNA analysis of prehistoric populations
yeah you could even say it was an important phase of our evolution huh? you stupid fucking mutt

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:28:27 UTC No. 16252889

>>16252823
>fathers don't become ATMs
holy shit wake up to the real world retard, that is exactly what happens to easily 99% of fathers, the mother always values the children more than the father, the mothers openly talk about shit like how they love children more than anyone else, nothing could ever possibly compare to the love they feel for their children, and the second the father can't provide he's given absolute scorn

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:33:46 UTC No. 16252897

>>16252878
Dysgenic depression is a thing. The overall genetical fitness is lowered between a mix of a ideal Alpha Male and a hypothetical subhuman, like a 150tall 2/10 uggo, and the offspring of such union is a net-loss for the genetic potential of humanity. The collective male "a womb is a womb" mindset is incredibly dysgenic.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:38:44 UTC No. 16252901

>>16252889
this is because they "settled" with a man that didnt make their pussy wet.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:39:10 UTC No. 16252903

>>16252833
Based hardcore eugenicist.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:46:36 UTC No. 16252919

There are 3 million more females than males in the US (165M to 168M). You can include the 15x more men than women in prison if you feel like it.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:47:41 UTC No. 16252920

>>16252722
>If this was true
Don't be bitter anon, learn and adapt.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:45:55 UTC No. 16253044

>>16252878
polygamy selects for shitter women

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:47:01 UTC No. 16253051

>>16252889
That's normal, also you can't read (because you're brown). Of course women love their children more than their husband, they're of their blood. You as a man should also love our children more than you love your wife and there is nothing wrong with pampering your kids. Someone who doesn't take pleasure in seeing people smile after a gift should be allowed to talk about breeding and families.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:47:04 UTC No. 16253052

>>16252919
compare those born there vs wetbacks

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:50:28 UTC No. 16253061

>>16252833
You have to understand most of the people who make these threads are actively scared of eugenics, since they know they wouldn't pass the lightest of standards. Many are also some sort of racial minority, meaning they wouldn't even reach the point of being considered and would be the sent straight to the incinerator in order to make biofuel.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:53:02 UTC No. 16253069

>>16253051
shouldn't* be allowed

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:20:51 UTC No. 16253119

>>16252878
You're retarded and don't know anything about genetics

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:41:45 UTC No. 16253147

>>16253051
>That's normal
exactly, because men are expendable, and are valued for the resources they provide

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:48:05 UTC No. 16253160

>>16253147
Cope. Modern women have better careers than men. In b4:
>but evolutionary psychology
Point to the value-resources-genes that are translated to the value-resources-proteins smoothbrain.

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:57:24 UTC No. 16253180

>>16253160
Not OP but you are a dumbass nigger who thinks itself smart lmao
You can't even point to the long legs genes

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:04:43 UTC No. 16253200

>>16253180
>it's complicated how genes give rise to traits but that doesn't mean that traits aren't selected on a genetic level
Nigger if you don't see that ''(wo)men are acting like this now because they're evolved this way'' is nonsense then you will never be white.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:09:04 UTC No. 16253218

>>16253180
>>16253200
Wait hold on never mind I'm going to eat an entire bag of Doritos and drink a gallon of Coca Cola now because my genes are recognizing a huge source of calories that are going to stimulate so much dopamine I just can't help myself it's a desire I was born with I came out of my mom's vagina and immediately cried for Coca Cola how can anyone even be skinny and have no appetite that's not natural.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:33:44 UTC No. 16253429

>>16252833
Dubs of truth.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:46:51 UTC No. 16255224

>>16252833
Hyborean mindset

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 02:43:19 UTC No. 16255888

>>16252733
Sad but true