Does this explain the incel crisis?

Is it only going to get worse?

Attached: futurecels.png (852x832, 505K)

Other urls found in this thread:

I think something like 10-20% of all male fetuses should be aborted. That way you account for the fact that women don't want men as much as men want women. Then the dating market would be "fair" and everyone would be happy.

More like 90% of fetuses should be doped with hormones that make them come out as female.

Not every Male needs to have sex, sweetie. Some are just born to be worker drones.

no it's because we're in wartime and nature is accounting for that.
Take for example the period after WW2, where there was also a higher birthrate for men due to the loss of male life during the war.

Modern society is socially and culturally skewered against men. That and the majority of soldiers are still male, means that more men die, which means more men will be born to offset the loss, this makes sure the species doesn't die out (though we won't for a while)

Nature knows things and no one has figured out how it does. Like after major wars when shitloads of dudes would die, nature somehow knew to replace the lost male population and the male birthrate explodes.

In the modern day though, dudes are committing suicide at record numbers. Maybe nature is also aware of this.

Attached: es-l.png (2015x1229, 27K)

Women can't even beat us at being born.
We even win the sperm race.

when did the male birthrate explode

Men are the expendable gender so naturally there are more of them.

>nature is a sapient, godlike intelligence
Hippie, begone.

>nature is so unfair to men that evolution births them more frequently to balance out all the suicides
I originally wasn't for genetic engineering but fuck we need it now.

That could work too, but I'd rather not try anything like that until genetic engineering is good enough to make them genuine fertile females.

That used to be true, but the combination of automation and allowing women into the workforce has eliminated the need for excess men.

and do so originally, god help you.

how many first world soldiers do you think have actually died in recent wars?

Attached: neverforget.png (481x244, 28K)

>links a Jow Forums post as their source

Actually I change my mind. We just need to find a way to drastically reduce the number of y chromosome carrying sperm that men produce. Maybe through targeted genetic engineering of only one of their testicles, essentially cutting the number of male spermicide they produce in half.

I hate phoneposting.

Lots of souls leave earth, lots of souls come back. Might be a clue that reincarnation is real.
But then again, I don't believe reincarnation states that one should always come back as the same gender, and I doubt suicide victims would want to be born as men again.

No. Men die sooner than women. So in most countries you still have more sexually mature women than men.

The incel crisis is actually due to a decline in voluntary celibacy. because guys are not as religious as they used to be.

keep in mind: civilian male casualties, which have been numerous, and the opposition in those wars. Suicide rates among men being higher by average.

More than just soldiers die in wars, and it's usually the men that are disregarded and discarded.

I'm not even an MRA and I know this is an issue.

that article says it's because women are changing their tastes

but the cut off is 35, and what if living conditions improve? should war go on forever? is suicide a good thing? are we really going to depend on men dying?

but those aren't first world civilian men ie incels.

Yes. If you look at the statistics, there are more men than women in almost every country in the world and every age group under 55. For most of human history, it used to be the case that men died sooner than women in wars, disease, industrial accidents, etc, but that is not longer the case since the 1960s due to fewer wars, fewer men dying, health and safety, etc. The problem is it takes nature time to correct this change in the environment, so for a while, there will be far more men than women, therefore millions of men without a long term partner.

what makes you think nature will correct this problem? where's the down trend?

These people are idiots. Nature won't correct. Nature didn't keep men's survival low, it was the way our society functioned. It was war and work, both leading to death, or to injuries that would get infected leading to death.

If we want to keep it in check then we need to either scrap all health and safety at work laws, or maybe start cutting back on medicine and healthcare, or start going to war again. And by war, I mean the old raids that tribes used to constantly pull against each other.

Or we could finally get the fuck out into space. The vast majority of colonists would be men.

I remember reading a theory on this a while ago, about how nature always tries to achieve an equilibrium, but I can't remember what it's called. Basically, if there are more men than women, then the chances are that families who have genes that produce more women than men are more likely to spread than genes that produce more men than women, as the male-dominant genes will not be able to reproduce as easily as the female-dominant genes. Of course, this kind of assumes women won't have multiple partners.

I don't know if it's true or not, but even if it is, it will still that at least a few generations of nature to balance the sex ratios.

>There are several social consequences of an imbalanced sex ratio. It may also become a factor in societal and demographic collapse. For example, the native population of Cusco, Peru at the time of the Spanish conquest was stressed by an imbalance in the sex ratio between men and women. High ratios of males make it easier for women to marry, but harder for men. In parts of China and India, there is a 12-15% excess of young men. These men will remain single and will be unable to have families, in societies where marriage is regarded as virtually universal and social status and acceptance depend, in large part, on being married and creating a new family. Analyses of how sex ratio imbalances affect personal consumption and intra-household distribution were pioneered by Gary Becker, Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman, and Marcia Guttentag and Paul Secord. High ratios of males have a positive effect on marital fertility and women's share of household consumption and negative effects on non-marital cohabitation and fertility and women's labor supply. It has been shown that variation in sex ratio over time is inversely related to married women's labor supply in the U.S.

>An additional problem is that many of these men are of low socioeconomic class with limited education. When there is a shortage of women in the marriage market, the women can "marry up", inevitably leaving the least desirable men with no marriage prospects. In many communities today, there are growing numbers of young men who come from lower classes who are marginalized because of lack of family prospects and the fact that they have little outlet for sexual energy. There is evidence that this situation will lead to increased levels of antisocial behavior and violence and will ultimately present a threat to the stability and security of society.