Paragon Fury said:
This actually leads into part of why I posed the question in the first place; and that is what would it be like if dating suddenly became a men's game again?
This requires a bit of explanation, so I'll give the cliff notes version;
Mating in humans, biologically, is almost 100% a woman's game; they normally have complete and total control over the process, selections of mates, are have an almost 100% reproduction success rate throughout human history. Males by contrast have a HORRIBLE success rate - some estimates have it that only 10% of men who have ever lived have a descendant with their DNA left today (compared to all the women who have ever lived).
It is a big reason why so many societies try to purposefully rig the rules in favor of men - as many people even here can attest to.
The only times mating in humans becomes a men's game is when there is a sudden shortage of men - IE: directly following a large disaster or war (men, as we all know, typically suffer tremendously more causalities during these kinds of events than women do).
The last time this happened was in the wake of WW2 - having two major global conflicts back-to-back SEVERELY depleted the number of mating/dating age men across the globe, even the in US. Men for several generations were on the "winning" side of the equation - women had to compete for them and couldn't risk being nearly as picky as they'd like to be (as there were neither the men around nor had women gained the economic power yet to afford to be able to do so).
Then the numbers leveled back out, women gained more economic power and the technological revolution happened and mating/dating has been for quite some time a purely women's game again (in fact, I think we've had this discussion in another topic).
Part of the question here was; what would happen if suddenly the numbers became imbalanced again - where the numbers now became a men's game again? Then there additional parts as to what would happen if the imbalance also included say, making the standards for beauty much higher etc.
Your cliff notes are hilariously wrong on so many levels. For one, not all women that have lived have had children (which is freaking obvious once you consider infant mortality rates prior to modern health care, female infertility, that some women are considered just as undesirable as some men etc.) and 10% is so incredibly low for men that we have to wonder how a 50/50 distribution ends up with 9 in 10 males not getting to reproduce if the same number is 10 in 10 for women. The simple truth is that a majority of both men and women never got a chance to reproduce historically, because they died during childhood. Even if we accept that 10% for men and 100% for women is true for those that got to reproductive age and weren't culled by other factors (sterility, disease etc.), that still leaves the huge question how 9 in 10 men didn't get to have children, despite the even distribution of genders and the fact that all women that could reproduce apparently did. Since polygamy hasn't been a thing except for in the top 1% of socioeconomic strata historically, how the
fuck does 1 man impregnate 10 women, when the last 4,000 years of recorded history has placed a lot of emphasis on monogamous relationships and one man-one woman centered family units? Did the other 9 men simply go to the same guy to have him knock up their wife?
Furthermore, not WW1 nor WW2 caused serious dents in most countries demographics. France suffered a shortage of young men post-WW1 but this shortage was corrected
within one generation (wit the caveat that that generation was smaller than the previous, leading to the French manpower shortage in the lead up to WW2), owing to the simple fact that any pregnancy is a 50/50 toss up between male/female fetus and in any larger population the outcome will be close to 50/50. Russia lost 10 million men dead as soldiers in WW2, but suffered a staggering 28 million dead total, meaning that 2 in 3 dead suffered in WW2 were civilians, where women and children were obscenely over-represented. The end result was a slight shift in demographics towards women, which, once again, only lasted for one generation. The US and UK didn't suffer enough casualties for it to have a demographic impact at all (400,000 dead is a lot, but not when compared to a 130 million or 47 million strong population).
What you've written is nothing but shitty, flawed MRA theorizing, that falls flat based on its' own absurdity. Through most of history neither men nor women has had any say in who they were going to marry and procreate with, because the survival and will of the family unit was ultimately more important then the individual freedom of any one person. The first careful steps towards romantic freedom came sometime in the mid-20th century for the Western middle class, but it wasn't until the early-21st century that it could be said to be widespread. At that point men dominated the dating scene, simply because they held the key to a woman's future, seeing as how they were breadwinners and an unmarried woman was a social pariah. Women simply had the choice of which of her suitors she preferred most, whereas men could pick and choose which women to court.
The modern MRA idea that women "control" dating and procreation comes from the simple fact that women today can choose for themselves. They are no longer choosing between whatever guys want them, but can actively pursue their own romantic interests, without any pressure to pick a partner or become social outcasts. In MRA-land, where the Incel's are kings, this is seen as a terrible injustice. But it is no such thing, it is simply men and women getting to choose romantic partners on their own terms.
