So what would happen if we lived in a society where feminists had control over all bodies of government...

So what would happen if we lived in a society where feminists had control over all bodies of government? Would they try to limit male births? Execute all men that look at a woman funny? Force us to sit down on the toilet to piss?

Other urls found in this thread:

breitbart.com/london/2016/11/14/gender-equal-snow-removal-policy/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

What ever it is I wouldn't be surprised if feminists try to pass that law

Bump for anwer, if anyone had it

Wtf are they gonna do if I have two sons? Complain to me to death?

It won't change the gender ratio at all. You're a moron if you don't get this.

You don't wanna know. Trust.

This is a small example.
breitbart.com/london/2016/11/14/gender-equal-snow-removal-policy/

or sample, or instance, or experiment

G/B should be around (2*n - 1) where n is the average number of kids per woman and G/B is the girls per boy ratio

>after the law is passed

how long after?
immediately after - 1:1
there you go, OP

This.
But it would be good population control.

f to m will be 2:1, no?
assuming probability of birthing a male or female is both 1/2

q / (1-q)^2 gives you the number of females for each male, if q is the probability of birthing a girl

Mandatory sexual relief of landwhales and female orcs, for a number of hours total

geometric probability distribution , if we assume that tha chance for either sex is p=0.5 (its not but its a good approximation) and each kid is a bernoulli experiment , and having a male is a 'bernulli experiment success'.
the expected value (number of kids until sucess) is 1/p = 1/0.5 = 2.

the ratio is 1:1, the families with 1 male will balance out the families with more then 1 girl .

Could you explain that to a moron?
In terms a moron can understand please

This is what will happen.

Be very careful.

You burgers are getting destroyed from within.

ah, no this is wrong as my computation assumes that families get children until their first male (and do not stop before that), I need the distribution of number of children to correct it I think.

But there should be around the same families with just 1 male as there are with just 1 girl, cancelling each other

Can I skip the whales and just do the orcs?

Nothing would ever be enough. There wouldn't come a point where they could say "sexism has been eradicated", because there would be ALWAYS some insignificant stupid fucking thing oppressing women.

See Sweden.

This is imouto genocide.

...

It would collapse in on itself until they were replaced like whenever a big corporation gets a new snowflake CEO.

my model only works for the assumption that all couples make babies until their first male .if they dont there's a shitton of cultural\environmental factors that determine where they stop and modeling that mathematically is a pain in the ass.

Most hardcore mahating feminists are jewish women

The odds of having either a boy or girl are roughly 50/50. If their first child is male they stop having kids. The odds of having multiple girls in succession up to 4 girls is relatively low. So the gender ratio would really only change drastically if everyone had 4/3/2 girls and 1 boy for a long period of time. At least thats my reasoning.

Depends on the upper bound n of children a family will have. It also depends on if one man procreates in only one family for perpetuity.

Can't be arsed to do the math, but I think it converges to 2:1 for arbitrarily large values of n.

>feminist society
So no society at all then?

ELI5

If you think this is why, it isn't.

>But there should be around the same families with just 1 male as there are with just 1 girl

Families who only want one child will be 50/50 m/f. Families who want two children either get f/f, f/m, or just m. Children of single children families will be overwhelmingly male.

His calculation is right, but he explained it wrong.
Imagine 1000 couples.
500 have boy and end.
500 have girl and continue
ratio so far 1:1
of that 500
250 boy and end
250 girl and continue
ratio again 1:1
and so on.

are yall taking Invetro fertilization into account?

Fuck. That's a very good explanation

What if my male children identify as female?

Checkmate feminists.

DEATH BY SHNU SNHU

It is not a good explanation. It mixes the two populations.

Consider 1 child families, n=1:
m and f -- 1:1
n=2:
f/f and f/m -- 3:1
n=3:
f/f/f and f/f/m -- 5:1

>Consider 1 child families, n=1:
>m and f -- 1:1

No, the M:F ratio of 1 child families is > 1
because a large number of families having F first child will go on to become 2,3,4 child families, but no M first child will do the same

link me to a decent iq test

...

abortion

21 female children would be a fucking nightmare

What would happen?
All ugly and short men will be killed, all the hawt guys will be used like public dildos and all society will be like a giant orgy.

It will always be 1:1 no matter the stopping strategy unless you are actively killing babies.

Feminists LOVE abortion. That's their whole thing. They love it. They love the feeling of killing of their own unborn child. It's in its early life stages, it can't run, it just has to die. That's their favorite thing.

You left out all the people who stop before every having a boy. You're assuming that limiting boys makes them precious and thus every child-bearing couple will continue until having one.

You're also assuming every child-bearing couple will stop having any kids as soon as they have a boy.

This might be less false in a feminazi-ruled world, but it's still false.

Thanks user, that helped me see the problem from the right angle

ABORTION
YOU
TARD

They love it. It is the one thing that makes feminists happy. If you have a second male in embryonic stage, it will be KILLED.

fifty percent of parents would have a boy as their first child and would have to stop.
the other fifty would have girls.

ratio is 1:1

fifty percent of those would have a boy as their second child and then stop.
the other fifty would have now had two girls.

the ratio of boys to girls for this group is 1:1


....


fifty percent of those who has a girl as their (n-1) child would have a boy as their nth child and then stop.
the other fifty would now have n girls

ratio at this for this group is 1:1

>You're also assuming every child-bearing couple will stop having any kids as soon as they have a boy.
That's the premise, retard.
>You're assuming that limiting boys makes them precious and thus every child-bearing couple will continue until having one.
It doesn't matter when they stop. The ratio will still be 1:1.

Doesn't matter. Still wrong.

Consider that n instead equals the number of children a family WANTS to have.
n=1
m & f -- 1:1
n=2
f/f & f/m & m -- 3:2
n=3
f/f/f & f/f/m & f/m & m -- 6:3 // 2:1

If you didn't come up with 1:1 then you don't deserve to be on this board and should promptly point a gun directly at your skull and pull the trigger.

at least the part of the population that is female is pic related.
You could take 1-that to get the part that are boys.
then take the ratio

But you forgot, wanting to have a girl will give you a boy 50% of the time, forcing you to stop there
Your model (which is the same I was considering) doesn't take into account that the chance of having a boy or a girl is roughly the same.
So, the families who have more than 1 kid are extracted only from the group of the families who had a girl first, which makes the n=1 group have a m/f ratio bigger than 1

>But you forgot, wanting to have a girl will give you a boy 50% of the time, forcing you to stop there
I didn't, I've included that possibility for every n, I suggest you reread it.

>Your model (which is the same I was considering) doesn't take into account that the chance of having a boy or a girl is roughly the same.
It does. A two child family has a 50/50 chance of either having a boy and a girl, or two girls. You might be interested in reading up on the Martingale Fallacy as it's somewhat related.

>So, the families who have more than 1 kid are extracted only from the group of the families who had a girl first, which makes the n=1 group have a m/f ratio bigger than 1
No, read what you're quoting again. The populations are broken out by number of children each family WANTS (upper bound), not what the actual children are. It's a subtle difference but every possibility is already counted, it doesn't matter that single child families will be overwhelmingly male.

To clarify further, simply imagine 4 families, A, B, C, and D.
A and B both have one kid, A has a boy, B has a girl. It's 1:1
C and D wanted two children, but C had a boy first, and D had two girls. There are now 3 single child families, with a 2:1 male ratio in the pool of single child families. There are however 3 girls and 2 males in this 4 family scenario, DESPITE there being more males in single child families.

>I didn't, I've included that possibility for every n, I suggest you reread it
You were right, sorry
HOWEVER
>n=2
>f/f & f/m & m -- 3:2
I think this is wrong. It's not 1/3 & 1/3 & 1/3 (cause P(male) is 1/2 and not 1/3)
it's 1/4*(2F) & 1/4*(M1F) and 1/2*(1M) which gives a number of 1/4*(3F+1M) +1/2M= 3/4F+3/4M or a 1:1 ratio

Whoops, messed up my example here, but it's the same explanation as is in the other posts.