Here is a comparison of male and female population growth in US from 1900 to 2010.
From 1900 until 1950 male population is growing at higher rate then female, meaning that there will be more men per woman.
From 1950 to 2010 the female population is growing at higher rates then male population, meaning there will be more women per man.
Basically, you have all of the answers to all of the questions in this pic-related.
Thank you. Bye.
what
what? the red line is the only relevant line and it is lower for females at every point i checked
the grows rate of males was higher then females before 1950.
that means that before the 1950s more men were alive them women and that number was growing
after 1950s there started to begin a decline in male population growths in comparison to female
are you not aware of obvious shit??
before 50s men were the growing majority
after 50s women are the growing majority
quality of life then and now. compare.
the only positive thing that came after 1950s is the internet. and even that is a massive tool for state controlled narrative
before 1950s life was an adventure
after 1950 life is a fucking prison compound where everyone has to walk along the line and obey all sorts of shit
freedom-wise 1950s is when the freedom ended.
and in highly NON freedom atmosphere.. who strives the most? those who are inherently not free.. the females.
basically, someone felt that men felt way too good before 1950s
and after 1950s.. men are not feeling very good at all.
along with men not feeling too good.. the society as a whole doesn't look to be well at all
..what the fuck else do you want nigga??
i gave you the answer to all questions.
this can be correlated with women living past childbirth with modern health care practices being implemented, and women live longer anyway dipshit.
It's probably correlated with high estrogen. We would need to find a study showing correlations between estrogen and testosterone and births based on gender. My father who lived in the mountains originally was high test and had many boys, we all grew up in the city and have much lowest test than our father even in his old age.
>that means that before the 1950s more men were alive them women and that number was growing
Even if that wasn't bullshit, it wouldn't be a good thing.
Two nations in close proximity, both with a surplus of men, always = war.
Women compete with each other to be more attractive to men; men compete with everything else, just to get a woman.
>freedom-wise 1950s is when the freedom ended.
Wrong again. Freedom ended (in the US) in 1920 with the 19th amendment, it just took a few decades to destroy society.
A woman’s vote needs to be limited to her influence over her man’s vote; anything else is folly.
Women are the bane of men’s existence, while also being their ultimate goal.
NO this is correlated with the quality of life in general. it has nothing to do with mortality rates among women.
in shitty conditions women are born more frequently and tend to survive such conditions better then men
that's all.
before 1950s the quality of life was generally higher
after 1950s the quality of life started to drop significantly
it has to do with urbanization, social policing, etc etc
men use to own land in large quantities before 1950s
men had more freedom to explore and create all sorts of enterprises before 1950s
that led to men creating a higher standard habitat, where the quality of service provided answered the conception of quality.
after 1950s, the conceptual standard of quality dropped and was in part masked by technology, where it would appear as if the quality haven't dropped, only because the technology made some processes to be completed faster
but faster doesn't mean better.
plus the means of production was monopolized by large corporations which baught out the assets of most of the men
corporations are of course, a state institutions created specifically for the purpose of overtaking the property of men and holding all of the mean of production under their control
now, this is a description of a concentration camp.
before 1950s life was not a concentration camp. it has it's flaws but generally before 1950s, any man could set out on a quest to become rich or otherwise sucessful or fail trying
nowdays, you can't even go out without an ID and to start any kind of adventure, you would need so many approvals and licences, permits and quota qualifications, that you might as well not even try at all
men became prisoners of the state and the decline in male population is the natural genetic response in females who apparently for this reason started to give births to more girls then men
and men on the otherhand, started to deminish in numbers.
all of it all is obvious.
>Two nations in close proximity, both with a surplus of men, always = war.
that's bullshit.
war is a question of territory not numbers of males in one nation or the other
if men have enough land to live well and have an opportunity to make a profit then there would be no war
but if men don't have enough.. then obviously they would search for more. it has nothing to do with the numbers of men over women
the whole reason men are born more then women is that the system has more to offer to men
once the system shifts to a 'controlling police state' then there is not much for that system to offer to men.. thus men are not born, since women have this genetic predesposition to give birth to either gender depending on the quality of life all around.
for instance more men were born before, since more men died before, but they didn't die in a prison. they died in adventure. and adventure mean higher profits in case its successful
thus women gave birth to men.. since the system itself allowed men to attempt a shot at success
now when men are not allowed to simply attempt a shot at success, without first being approved by a shit tonn of instances and certificates, licenses and shit.. thus men are not born as often as women
nowdays men are born simply to continue reproducing the work force. that's all
noone is gonna have a shot at sucess
everyone is a fucking worker on a wage and becoming successful is a bunch of crock shit that happens only when the candidade for sucess answers the political narrative of the state
basically.. now, there is a strict quota on how many men can be sucessful at a time
and the rest of the men.. have no shot.
thus.. men are not born
>Two nations in close proximity, both with a surplus of men, always = war.
You think that is a bad thing?
>Freedom ended (in the US) in 1920 with the 19th amendment
i was speaking more generally.
if you were to say when exactly freedom ended.. well.. it never actually started in the first place
the society is inherently not free and no individual is free in a society
but the level of freedom to act in certain ways can be different
the state allows people to do this or the other
i was speaking in general.
after 1950s the state really limited people in general in what the people can do
i mean if you look before 1900s, you didn't even need a passport to travel in most cases
the land could be baught as easily as a cone of icecream today, without any bunch of "legal" bullshit
the state allowed for a lot. and there was a reason for this
that was a time when the state needed the motivated men to build the cities, the roadways, the railways, ports and mines, etc etc
when there was a need for the state to build it's prodcutive infrastructure, then the state allowed more freedoms to men. it allowed for more awards, for more success, for higher quality of service, etc etc
but when the state was done building it's FACTORY system, then there was no need in "free" men
there is a need now for a cheap ass worker, dependent on the state
so thats what we have now... and before 1950s we didn't have that to such an extent
women's voting rights have nothing to do with it.
voting never solved anything. it was always an act to make people feel as if they matter.
it's not like when women didn't vote.. men had some say in what is going on
it was always a few behing the curtains who actually decided on what is gonna happen
the social issues propaganda is a scham
they only put on an act as if they care fore anything, only to mask the actual goals of the system
but the goals are quite obvious. it's the concentration camp.
the whole deal with this is that women react to this biologically and give less births to male children
...
We need the graph of the difference, hard to compare these graphs
IIRC the ratio of men-women throughout MODERN history has always fluctuated from 45-55% of either being the majority. In prehistoric times however, since almost every man was used for hunting and war, that ratio always fluctuated a lot more with women being in the higher numbers for some decades which is why most of us are related to warchiefs and kangs.
This still doesn't really affect anything until either sex goes above 55% or below 45% of the population, seeing as how if there are more women in modern day, than man, 80% are still only choosing to procreate with 20% of the men.
Basically, shit's fucked senpai.
>in shitty conditions women are born more frequently and tend to survive such conditions better then men
In shitty conditions, women survive more often than men because men are willing to defend and provide for women before themselves.
>that led to men creating a higher standard habitat
The need for pussy led to men creating a higher standard everything, in order to compete with EACH OTHER for said pussy.
In an ideal world, there would be 100 women for every man.
This would still cause war when the lone tribe that has 100 men for every woman decides to invade the rest of the world.
Women have one thing that men haven’t (yet) created for themselves— a functional womb.
Throughout our entire history, men have either conquered or bought pussy.
This is why women fear artificial wombs and sexbots. They know as well as we do that they will soon be rendered obsolete, because they chose to be one-dimensional.
Why ever risk your life for a “real” broad when you can buy a robot that can get pregnant for only $1995?
Women could be more than simple cumdumpsters if they wanted to.
The fact that I still have to choose chicks by their cup size, willingness to please, and eye color says otherwise.
can you post the raw numbers? your graph is out of order and makes it more difficult to follow
>if men have enough land to live well and have an opportunity to make a profit then there would be no war
Horseshit.
Beyond having enough food and water to live, men do everything for women.
Women are a resource, just like water and copper.
If there are enough in your homeland, why would you risk death to leave?
Agreed, if there were only like 3-4 men per 1 women in any society, there would be lots of civil conflict. Men would probably be flooding out of the country, or trying mail-order brides, or just flat-out leaving to find greener pastures.
Procreation is the driving force of life, you gain resources and stabalize yourself for that very purpose, despite what some people say.
Otherwise there would be no point to anything. People wonder why single 30 somethings who bank 250+k are always on meds? They forget why they wanted that many resources and the human mind can't comprehend what to do at that point.
>You think that is a bad thing?
Absolutely not.
It's why we have hot broads now.
Look to the dynamics of Africa if think you’d be happy fucking ugly women.
Niggers Muh Dik everything that can’t run faster than them. Sober or not.
Europe had a more…
selective breeding process.
One man among 10000 who gets to pick from the 10 women in his village will choose to fuck them all.
One man among 100000 who wins the war and has 10000 pussies thrown at his face everyday will be choosy.
Pic related. This thing got pregnant.
>if you were to say when exactly freedom ended.. well.. it never actually started in the first place
I agree.
>after 1950s the state really limited people in general in what the people can do
"The State" is just a group of men willing and able to force their needs upon everyone else.
Women, as always, whine, complain, and nag to get men to do their bidding.
Do you really believe that women conquered the world, or did they just close their legs for a few months?
it's not about men and women
it's about the reaction of human biology on the quality of life
you all are making it men against women argument, while it's wasn't such in the first place
the graph represents the biological reaction to the change in the system
before 1950s the system gave more opportunity to men, thus more men were born
now the system gives less opportunity to men, thus less men are born
and women only give birth. they are not the point of this argument.
you all, who are trying to argue some bullshit in line with "men against women narretive" are seeing what you want to see, not what you are being shown.
the whole picrelated was about the biological reaction to the system's doctrine
people have questions about WHY are WE ALL living in this fucked up world and all of the other questions
this answers all questions
MEN ARE BORN LESS when the life is shit
WOMEN ARE BORN FREQUENTLY THEN MEN when life is shit
the more quality of life the less women there are and more men
men biologically attracted to quality.
women biologically are attracted to lesser quality
men strive for the best
women settle for what is available
it's only a biological reaction to the system
it's not about men against women argument
the whole argument here is that men are born less frequently and are not a majority
that means that quality of life in general is very shitty and that answers all question WHY
you can literally understand WHEN the quality of life is good and when it is bad.
if more men are born then there are more opportunities, thus higher quality
the less men are born the lower the quality of everything around
make quality of life higher and then men will pop out of the womb more frequently
make shitty quality and women are born more.. since women are biologically suited to settle for shitty things
no one asks women. they just give birth and indicate the general level of quality of life
this post is not against women. it's not about women.
>"The State" is just a group of men
it's not a group of men
The state is a doctrine. A set of goals that must be reached and accomplished.
Who imposes or dictats those goals are not clear. But what is sure to say is that it's not a "group of men" or women or anything human that is deciding the fate or people.
And it's not some god.
There is something that dictates the doctrine that is being executed by a "group of men"
I mean there may be some virtual group of men who give the initial doctrine.. but they sure have to live outside of our system completely.
You see.. our system has an innate trait. IT IS A PROVIDER SYSTEM. It provides. It serves.
Our lives completely are dictated in such a way as to serve someone
Everyone from the most powerful man to the beggar.. ALL SERVE.
In this system it's impossible for those who live in it to be any kind of a ruler in such a system
A control is done from the outside of this system completely.
Just like a colony. A colony provides the resource for some far away metropoly.
The rulers always rule from outside.
And our world is COMPLETELY a COLONY of someone's
------------
As in regard to women. As I've said. They have no play in this at all. They just give births. If the life is shitty.. they birth more women and less men. If the lifes is better then men are born more frenquently
But the point of it all is that the comparative number of men and women reflect the quality of life
after 1950s the birth rates indicate a significant drop in quality
out of that come the answers for all question
it's very important to understand the fundumental meaning to of this
this is simple, fundamental and very important.
this is what defines life.
men are inherantly born with the intent to make a good quality life. if there is no such opportunity then men are born less.
women biologically are constructed to react to quality drop.
it's not about who conquered the world.
it's about that the world is not ours.
>If there are enough in your homeland, why would you risk death to leave?
there is never enough of anything for all
there was always a tale of a young man leaving on an adventure to find his luck
that's how people became successful in the past - they went on an adventure
not people just have to obey and kiss ass.. basically in order to become successful
now if you go on an adventure.. it's not for profit or success.. it's either for some ideals.. like helping the poor in africs or freeing the lands from terrorists
none of that beings success. save for the puplicity figures who are often actors anyway
---
as in regard to men doing everything for women.
well.. if there opportunities to explore.. the men obviously choose women as a part of the successful journey
if a man truly reaches a success in his enterprize he may choose whatever the fuck he wants.
but the point is that there was an opportunity for a success and profit from an adventure before.. and now there are no profits and no success
all adventures now are fake politically motivates publicity acts that bring nothing but sorrow to all
also.. both men and women are a resource. this is the irony of life.
it's just men are a resource for different actions.
we are all fodder in the long run.
>The state is a doctrine. A set of goals that must be reached and accomplished.
Created by whom? And why?
"The State" is not a naturally occurring entity.
It's an artificial construct; created by men at the behest of women, to ensure their security during his absence.
With enough land to feed himself, and a productive womb at his side, most men would choose to go fishing every day for the rest of their lives.
(substitute "fishing" with vidya, camping, hunting, ,shitposting, toeflossing, whatever).
A man whose balls are well and often drained will never be a conqueror.
0-4 year is only relevant data line, it's always male>female even before 1950
>The need for pussy led to men creating a higher standard everything
it's not the need for pussy.
it's the need for good quality.
obviously the quality of pussy was included in the over all quality standard.
you may think that the modern model quality of pussy is the best..
but before there were the same hot ass chicks with much tighter and more exclusive pussy that you could have. plus you could easily have much more of the better pussy then you could ever have now
now the only pussy that is available is the roasted beef second hand used expensive pussy
now to even consider to afford a good pussy.. you must have a relatively high social status and money.
now you are literally ordered by the state to fuck shitty pussy.
a hot ass pussy has higher likelyhood to end up in porn now-days then become your pussy
you might as well get in line for a good pussy today.. as ironically as it sounds.. it's the only deal
the best pussy today, is roasted pussy yesterday.
and if you even think of touching the unroasted pussy.. you are likely to find yourself in prison or something
ironically even the 15 year old pussy now-days is already roasted enough that by 20 years of age you are like at least the 100th train passing through there
shiiiiet.. men only need the opportunity to make good quality things for themselves
but who makes the pussy for you today??
yes. it's a corporation that makes pussy for you.
before 1950 you could actually hand craft the pussy to fuck for yourself if you wanted.
feel the difference
hand crafted pussy vs. mass produces Macdonalds-type pussy
Indeed, I've been saying this in a lot of threads, but Humanity is currently undergoing a major change thanks to global warming.
What exactly do I mean?
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>iflscience.com
>treehugger.com
>theguardian.com
First three articles mainly cover the science behind it, as well as cover some of what recent studies have found, while the last one covers hows it already beginning to massively impact the Arctic region. We're basically heading towards a time that, even if you don't count sexbots, will force a return of power in the dating market to men because there will be so much competition among women.
>it's not the need for pussy.
Of course it is.
The rules changed; the goal didn't.
>It's an artificial construct; created by men at the behest of women
LOL. No.
>Created by whom? And why?
By the rulers of this world.. which is a colony
who are they? i don't know
why?
to mine the minerals of course. why the fuck would you create a mining type of colony which basically only exist to mine the minreal, transport them to ports.. and send them whoeverthefuck knows where
obviously we produce much more resources then we consume.
we have been producing literally billions of tonns of refines resources for the last 200+ years
and what do we have of it all??
all our cities is 99% made from stone with some addiction of iron and copper.
what about all the other resources?
they are called rare.. but not because there are a little of them in the Earth. It's just they are rarely used by us.
If you look at something like Titanium.. it's not rare at all. There is a shit load of it inside the Earth and we only use it rarely in weapons or some shit like that
But the rest of the rare resources go somewhere.
It's quite obvious.
I don't know where.. but it's not for our use definately. Otherwise we would already have fucking roads made from steel and shit like that.
If all the resources actually went back to us.. we all would have a house made from really cool mineral.. and not from some bullshit bricks or fake wood or plastic
Even wood.. it's a recycleable resource which is reletively cheap but still.. we are not allowed to use much of it
..shiiiet.. we are not getting any resources
we produce a shit tonn of nice minerals and we literally get only like 10-30% of it for our use
and the rest goes somewhere
just count how much trillions of tonns of resources have been produced over the last 200 years
where is it?
we only see bricks, concrete blocks and some iron/steel sctructures
where is the rest?
even plastic is just a by-product from oil industry.
we literally are allowed to use only the recuclable shit
Here me out: What if women significantly outnumbered men, to the point every man could have their own harem? There's literally not enough dicks to go around so they have to share.
Largely the point. Between this, the coming Mega AIDs epidemic, and drug resistant STDs, thots are going to die out and power in the dating and marriage market shifts firmly back in favor of men.
>smoke pot
>chemical change in sperm
>somehow can only have girls
>Of course it is.
the so called need for pussy.. is not even biological.
it's entirely social. the state propaganda forces you to obey the rules and have the so called need for pussy
no one has a need for pusse or a dick or anything as such
all have a need for good quality.
you are seriously narrowing everything down to 'a need for pussy'
what are you a fucking 17 year old in heat or something
that's not how arguments work
there is never something so abstract as a need for pussy in the coner of things
having to want a pussy is not a need.
a need is when you can't live without it
men can't live without good quality of life, thus they are born less. it's biological mechanics not social
a need for pussy is irrelevant.
plus seriously.. the pussy is always available. so there is no need for it from the stand point of having some pussy
there is a need for more people, but there no need for a pussy since it's already here in abundance.
i've had so much pussy and never felt any fucking need for it.
how can you have a need for something that is right here available to you.. the only shit you had to ever meet is social conditions
so a pussy was never anything of a great value
but a good quality pussy was defined by much more then being available.
there may be a need for good quality pussy.
but it has nothing to do with the order of biological mechanisms
we need good life. that's what we need.
and pussy is not what we need.
but good quality pussy is always nice tho.. it's just it's not something to have a long lasting qualities
pussy is a short expiration product.
once any pussy reaches like 25 years of age. it's value is 0
there is a demand for young pussy. not the need tho.
>Indeed, I've been saying this in a lot of threads
it's nice to see that some people get it.
there is no global warming tho.. unless you were sarcastic
you see. for the any kind of warming or colding to accure there has to be a standard tempertature for this world
and there is no standard tempertaure in our world
so there are no warmings or coldings
its just a temperature fluctuations, since the standard for our atmosphere is that it's highly volatile. it goes up and down and sideways more times in a second along a wide range
so any kind of shit with our atmosphere is normal by default
plus to tell you the truth i don't see any wormings anywhere where they should really happen
we can get back to this question when bananas start growing in Alaska
>smoke pot
just wanted to say that coco was legal and other stuff too.. before 1950s
shiiet.. half of german army was high on Meth during WW2 lol
how do you thing they managed to Blitzcreig most of Europe??
the only downside to this was that when they Run out of supplies of Meth on the Eastern front.. everything went down the shit pipe
everyone became too depressed to fight
but when there was Meth.. the shit was on nigga
>What if women significantly outnumbered men, to the point every man could have their own harem?
that's why they passed all these female emansipation laws.. so that shit wouldn't happen
obviously women are not gonna have them in a harem anytime soon. the laws protect them
what are you gonna do?
you can only rent the pussy out for a night for like 500 USD
if you decide to rent long term.. get ready to pay like at least 50% of what you have
Of course a Korean would give his 2 cents on this severely autistic bullshit. (I'm Korean)
you im just saying. that all this shit just started
..whats gonna be in the future if nothing changes?
it's gonna be a society of women and like a few men just to take care of all the technology and shit and provide some sperm
it's a really fucking sad world that is coming.. it's alrwady here but it's not full blown yet
but we can already see the obvious
i'm not korean. i just pass through.
>a Korean would give his 2 cents
obviously highly conformed Korean and other Asians wouldn't go against the system EVAAAH
we all know that asians love their obedient life styles.
i just wanted to remind you. that the bulk of intellectual discourse is led by white men.
coz.. it's all about us.. white men.
we can show all what the truth is.
and all can copy us later. we are cool with that.
This is not related to women. It's related with imigration (that's why quality of life droped). Plus, nonwhites have small dicks that's why women were born in higher numbers after borders were opened.
This guessing the information you gave are the truth course (women numbers after 1950 and quality of life compared. Alrhough now a days the obvious results of nonwhites inside one country are now obvious).