If suddenly humanity began to have a natural 40/60 gender birth ration...

IT'S TIME FOR THE BULLSHIT TRAIN TO HIT THE FAN.

So, what are we doing today? Fetlife discussion is always an option, but since we're already on a gender thread this needs more blatant disregard for the thread. How about I explain comedy like I know what I'm doing and people berate me for it.

First off, the Superiority theory of humor. The idea that when we see others act stupid or feel pain it's funny for us because we're not in their situation.

Example: Everyone who's butthurt in this thread because it exists.

I think you're imagining a much higher gender ratio than we're talking about here. 60/40 isn't even in two to one territory, let alone harem.

In all likelihood, you'd end up with one sex having a less favorable position than it does now, but not on a massive society-warping level.

if the males are more numerous we get increased suicide rates as far as the asians showed us

if the females are I guess it will mean increase in infedilty and poligamy

The world would become China

From what I've heard, because Y sperm are slightly less heavier than X sperm, they swim faster and thus have a slightly greater chance in reaching the egg than X sperm. I believe it's the reason why 105 males are born for every 100 females. Before human life expectancy tripled, a lot of boys would die before adulthood.

If it was /pol/ or /r9k/, there would either be (actual) misogyny or unsubstantiated broad claims on female psychology. OP is not acting like a /pol/fag so far.

The gender balance is a delicate equilibrium that can't be upset. It's like global warming; Canadians might welcome 6 degrees of average warming, but thousands of species might go extinct.

> Go to small liberal arts school in deep red state
> Gender gap is roughly 50/50, possibly slightly more females than males
> Everything is fine
> Next year, gap pushes more in females' favor
> Whatever, this isn't --
> Next year, gap is roughly 60/40 female to male
> Drama starts to break out in earnest among the females
> Men start to behave either hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine
> There start to be guys walking around wearing fake tits
> On the other end of the spectrum, women start to all meld together into androgyny
> Women are behaving more aggressively
> By Year 4, it's 64/36 female to male
> We start to be That School
> Girlfriend is openly suicidal because of all the bullying she's getting from other women
> Feminist house turns into the Gender House
> The big news on campus is a bunch of female-to-male transgendered kids want to join the frat that rapes everyone
> I graduate and never look back

Women are crazy and men are horrible, but when you have an equal mix our iniquities start to balance each other out. When the ratio gets put off by even a little, catastrophe ensues.

So did humanity arrive at a 40/60 ratio? Is the 40/60 ratio somehow enforced, whether artificially or by some weird biological mechanism? I think there'd be some incentives to at least even it out, at least if there's more women than men, if not just forgetting incentives entirely and just waiting for the ratio to even out naturally somehow.

I wonder how that gap shifted. Did more women decide to go or did less men decide to go? Were women favored or pushed into those schools? Scholarships?

The ratio only evens out in the long term. In the short term, which is probably a longer term than human civilization, there'd still be a noticeable gender skew.

If were going to be serious about this you'll first have to explain how genders work in your setting. Are there biological differences between the genders? Are these differences physical or mental? Is your setting an SJW's utopian dream?

If you want to base it on the real world you'll first have to decide what differences there are, if any, in the real world and then extrapolate from there. For real world examples you could take a look at modern china (for heavy male ratio) or post ww1 europe for heavy female ratio, but then again there might be some big cultural differences between these historical examples and your setting.

It's a symptom of a larger problem. Men in general aren't going to college at the same rate as women. And women are more likely to go to a liberal arts school than a male. And women are more likely to major in Lesbian Dance Studies than men, where there's an overt political agenda that revolves around fear of the kyriarchy. If all you have is a gender studies degree, everything looks like a phallus trying to rape you.

So the more women there are on a college campus, the more paranoid everyone gets. They start to try to find reasons to justify the fear, and so they start lashing out at anything that isn't exactly like them.

Here's a perfect example:

> mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2017/03/ann_arbor_woman_pleads_guilty_1.html

She was in a Women's Literature class and frightened herself, then faked a hate crime from a Trump supporter. She needed something to explain the sense of fear she felt, so she reified it by scratching her face and inventing an acceptable target.

Of course, on the other side of the spectrum, if you find an all-male school somewhere, they're probably re-enacting Lord of the Flies right now if there aren't occasional mixed-gender dances. So it's not about me distrusting women; it's about me distrusting single-gender spaces.

>would there be any noticeable effect on society/civilization

Yes. It would start subtle but eventually become dramatic changes. I'll take a female dominant outlook, but its generally applicable to a male dominant one.

1. Women would become more aggressive to one another. Studies on primates have shown that female groups become more aggressive to rivals in reduced pools of males - because being able to reproduce is ultimately a key driver of existence and if there's not enough to go around, the most competitive will be the most successful.

2. Males would become more promiscuous. For males as the larger pool of females gives them the option to reproduce with, their level of responsibility to raising a kid lowers: because the opportunity to just pump and dump becomes a more viable strategy as females come to the males and fight it out between each other to keep them happy. For a real world example: In China there's a who city where women pay men to be their boyfriend and do whatever they can to keep their men satisfied incase a rival loses out.

3. Fischerian Runaway would switch to male tastes, as they would be able to dictate which characteristics are desirable to them in mates (because the pool is larger to pick from). Meaning that in a feminist wet-dream society of more women than men, men actually have far greater control over a womans looks and lifestyles than the every had. It depends on how much you invest in his sexual theories though, but simple 'Sellers market' theory works here just sensibly.

3. More Bi-Sexuality/Homosexualuty: Some studies suggest that Females are born Bi-Sexual or Gay but rarely straight. This means that more Female-Female coupling would occur. It is however unclear what level of male-male coupling would occur as no one has had the ability to study it. In high male populations though like prisons, a power dynamic emerges between givers and receivers so that may apply.

There are micro-instances of this kind of gender divide, already. I can't state the exact ratio from memory, but among folks with college degrees in some cities, most notably New York and DC, there are more eligible women than men. Why people are increasingly self-segregating with regards to wealth and education is a different topic, but it's happening so let's go from there.

Basically, the result is that there are fewer young couples with children. It also allows a career-focused culture to thrive, because finding a partner becomes more of a hassle than just working more.

The end result is an increase in the wealth-gap, as couples with education spend a lot of time and effort choosing a partner and rearing the most successful kids so that they, too, can find a suitable partner and career.

So you don't get a silly societal meltdown a la A Handmaid's Tale or Children of men, but you do see radicallu different family values developing where all the resources and education concentrate (cities).

Societies have so many ways to deal with this that it basically comes down to what is easiest to swallow.

Monasteries or nunneries might come back into vogue in a religious society, the 'surplus' of the more prominent gender being segregated into isolated communities.

Or in a non-religious society you might have more of a hikikomori phenomenon- people who don't really value themselves and don't feel they have any purpose in society.

Or in a more liberal one you might have homosexuals of the more common gender are able to be much more open while the other still faces pressure to remain in the closet and have a heterosexual relationship at least as a cover.

Or we all just kind of get used to it and it has no discernable effect from inside, it's a lot easier to get a date as the less common gender but people are just as out of your league or below your standards, so more folks of the common gender end up going home alone or rarely in a threesome within the range they'd already be dating.

I heard Japan is going through this right now. Look up 'herrbivore' man.

This is obviously /d/. On every global fetish thread there's at least one post about gender ratios like this.

>Or in a non-religious society you might have more of a hikikomori phenomenon- people who don't really value themselves and don't feel they have any purpose in society.
I don't care for the contents of this thread, but you have my personal thanks for articulating this thought. No, really, thank you.

The larger gender would have to pick up some of the roles commonly performed by the smaller gender. Norms would probably get watered out in the long run, although this is happening in the real world anyways.

Nothing really interesting to be quite honest faggop, there would be more homosexual relations on the dominant gender or just polygamous familiar units

AS we're dealing with overpopulation, I don't think people will go into lengths to deal with the problem unless it gets significantly worse.

The last point you made seems quite likely, though.

We're far from overpopulation.
We produce more than enough food for everyone, but we lose a lot because some rots before reaching the consumer, some is stolen, some is destroyed on purpose, some dies in the fields. And then there's of course the West and how much we waste.

We've acutely seen ratios close to 60/40 favoring women in postwar years. It's a REALLY good economic move.

Almost all men get married and end up working hard to provide for a family, unlike bachelors that are typically less ambitious. More women move into the work force, a net positive that provides a great economic path forward.

We've never really seen 60/40 in favor of men, but we do know that 55/45 favoring men is a social and economic disaster from looking at China.

Interestingly enough, outside of some sort of societal intervention, an uneven birth rate is nearly impossible. All human communities have ratios of about 50% male to 50% female, differing only by a few percent in any outlying case.

>55/45 favoring men is a social and economic disaster from looking at China.

They've never gotten close to 55/45

Even at the worst of the girl-baby drownings, China only reached 52/48

Overpopulation is not a global problem, but it's a massive local problem. SE Asia and south Africa have populations that have greatly outstripped resources and infrastructure.

>52/48 favoring men is a social and economic disaster from looking at China.

But user, the human birth ratio varies naturally from 40-60% based on the health/nutrition/age of the mother.

Human uteri will actively suppress male zygotes from implanting in times of lower nutrition, as one example.

>60/40 ratio
It encourages too much competition, which can be really, really bad.
You end up either getting
>Planet of the Bitches
or
>Mad Max
Pretty much this. The reason Compsci majors don't go fucking bananas is because we know that there are still bars we can pick up chicks at.

If it was /d/ you'd expect at least a 2-1 ratio, if not 25% men 50% women 25% futa.

Read pic related

Setting has a male:female ratio of something crazy like 5:95

Basically, men become non-citizens and are subject to slavery as the husband to sisterhoods of 15+ wives.

India will be a shitfest.

60/40 in favor of women is great for economics and brithrates. men get laid, and women can be spinsters and not throw a shit fit. Flip that number, and suddenly dudes start getting mad at the lack of poon. The middle east has basically this exact problem due to multiple wives. Its like 30% of the reason that desert hellhole is more kitty litter than sandbox

>economic disaster from looking at China.
>most consistent and rapid growth ever experienced in human society which has has transformed China from an agricultural economy into a tech and manufacturing powerhouse overtaking Germany, the UK, France and even Japan in less than 20 decades

Wew

Do you have a pdf of it?

If it's overall imbalance, you can make it work. Viz a lot of yhe posts ITT

If it's actual birth chance, the species is fucked unless it develops strict rules for the number of children and ways t deal with the 20% of the population that will inevitably be out of luck.

It already is

>and their environment and society is on the brink of collapse because they skirted all sensible safe means in pursuit of profit AND their cultures norms aren't meshing with their actual situation
user, you need to stop.

>20 decades
I mean give me 200 years and I could get shit done too.

With their advancements in tech those things are practically non-issues for them, or soon to be non-issues.

>environment

We've poisoned our own land/water/air during our industrial revolutions and that didn't cause any longterm problems to our environments. China also has better tech to deal with those problems than what we had during our industrialization period.

>society

An aging population isn't a problem either; robotics will fix those problems too.

The 55/45 thing for China has been great, since men in general produce more than they consume China has been able to maintain a massive trade surplus which has given it the capital needed to invest into high-tech industries. Technology can, and literally will, solve all those problems.

I meant to write 2 decades. Sorry about that.

>China also has better tech to deal with those problems than what we had during our industrialization period.
Which is why they are totally using those techs, scaling back their industrialization rather than pushing it to it's limit for profit, and their wealthy elite all own land outside China. Nope, government corruption isn't a hallmark of Chinese society.
> robotics will fix those problems too
Ignoring how their culture's ethics absolutely rail against such impersonal treatment of their elders.

The advantages and disadvantages of China's economy are greatly exaggerated.

Now I'm wondering what viable solutions exist to a worst case senario, one sex just full on stops being born naturally

>It's like global warming
So gender balance doesn't actually exist?

There has been some success in expeirments using one egg to fertilize another in rats.

It exists, but it's totally natural and any evidence that it should actually be leaning towards the other direction is just a bunch of hooey spewed by scienceticians with an agenda.

It's hard to say what effect it has, since we don't' have a 50/50 all other variables the same China to compare it to.

Interesting to know, on the other side, if women stooped being able to birth females, we'd have to get much more creative, some means of artificial womb or ovim, possibly built into sex bots or cyborgs of some form, this is assuming the genetic engineering needed to turn an adult male into a functioning female is impossoble

Agreed, all that said I'm not against reduced emissions and cleaner energy

...

>it's about me distrusting single-gender spaces
This right here
I'm so glad that of the two good schools near me I went to the mixed-gender one not counting the catholic schools, seeing as I'm from a prod family
I ended up in a friend-group that was about half grill, which I think was probably a good thing?

One thing that I noticed was that straight guys at my school were very homoerotic in comparison to aforementioned boy's school, where apparently if you so much as tilted your head in either direction in the locker room you'd be labelled a flaming faggot. What this means, I have no idea.

>Which is why they are totally using those techs, scaling back their industrialization rather than pushing it to it's limit for profit,

But the profit thing is good, you only have this chance, like right now, to sell a purse you made for 30 cents to some rich woman in Sweden for the equivalent of 180 dollars. The environment can wait, it will, quite literally, fix itself.

>and their wealthy elite all own land outside China.

That's what happens when you have money; you buy things. While Europe buys handbags or new shoes the Chinese use that money and buy agricultural land, factories and research to better compete in the future while also heavily investing in research back in China.

>Nope, government corruption isn't a hallmark of Chinese society.

China ranks fairly moderate in government corruption and has been getting better.

>Ignoring how their culture's ethics absolutely rail against such impersonal treatment of their elders.

You don't seem to understand how little Chinese culture matters to China's political elite.

theguardian.com/world/2014/may/28/anqing-china-six-elderly-people-kill-themselves-burial-ban

See that? The Chinese political elite literally banned coffin burials and nobody in China stopped them. The communists there have removed Chinese spiritualism and mysticism, Chinese 'culture' is what the ruling party wants it to be. If they deem robot house-workers OK then they'll be OK.

I agree, most people seem to think that China is either some kind of hellscape that's being devoured by demons or a superpower that can take on the rest of the world and win.

Depends on which gender.

If only women are born (no matter what kind of sperm cell was used or if Y-sperm results in no child) then, while men still exist, a cure would be researched and men would asked to provide as much semen as possible for future artificial insimination once all men are gone.

While the men are alive I think women would throw themselves at them to ensure a chance at reproducing.

Once only the sperm-banks (government) has semen then only the high achieving women would be allowed to have children. Having good grades/a lot of wealth would ensure that you get children so most women would focus hard on studies. Most research would be spent on developing a way to bring males back or ensuring reproduction without them.

Might have women bandits attacking sperm clinics to ensure they get children.

If men we would probably see research into artificial wombs.

I like that instead of using that on me, who is arguing that China is in a pretty good position overall, used it on a random guy who said to take what you hear with a pinch of salt.

It might have something to do with only 20% of prehistoric men having children (by comparison 80% of women did) so any possibility of calling another man homosexual/weak/low-value was used by men on each other to lower that man's chances of siring children (and thus increasing their own chance of having kids).

Beijing is a toxic hellhole where you don't go outside without a mask or at night though.

>More women move into the work force, a net positive that provides a great economic path forward.
>implying
Increasing the workforce while keeping the same number of jobs that support an already existing population is bad, whether it be labor suffrage or immigrants.

Yours fit the meme better

I'm the other guy that's why I said;

>I like that instead of using that on me

So guys who actually have contact with a similarly sized population of girls aren't as ultra-straight caricatures?
That kinda makes sense

I mean, it's impossible to know what constituted an insult back in the palaeolithic. I mean, apart from shit that's universal to all cultures

>It might have something to do with only 20% of prehistoric men having children (by comparison 80% of women did)
Not this shit again.

>40/60
In favor of men? Expect a lot more "losers".
in favor of women? Expect a lot more polygamy (which ironically would again lead to more "losers").

Nothing else would change, women would remain self-overestimating fuckholes.

Yours fit the meme better

What?

Support authors, fuck face

That requires money, which many of us lack

There already is a drastically higher rate of unmarried men and we're only 48/52

Then go without until you get money.

How about something like the Moon is a Harsh Mistress? The lesser numbered gender get more control because they have more choice, and might even take multiple partners, satisfying both sides if they can get over being co-husbands/wives.

It's interesting to note that it was only the "Western" station on the Moon that went Cucky

In the Chinese station its clearly states that the left-over men either get over themselves or get airlock'd

The Russians do the same and the Chinees are too barren to profit off of polygamy.

Go read Date-onomics

>holy shit it's something that could be construed as political POL IT'S POL GET THE FUCK OUT POL AHHHHHHHHHH

The Great Enemy reveals himself. Fuck off Satan, I ain't buying your shit.

Date-onomics basically says that men aren't as smart as women and that women either have to date down or be as assertive as possible if they want a man on their level.

Boom, wow, just saved you 200 pages of Social "Science"

Thanks user, what a shit book.

I hate this "men are dumb" meme that keeps getting spouted.

>"men are dumb" meme
It's true. Women are naturally slightly more intelligent and a lot wiser than males.

>women actually believe this
If anything, the female bell curve is narrower than the male bell curve, assuming that they even share the same mean.

I mean, I would love to believe that but everything just disproves that notion.

>implying
I'm a man. I've just studied enough psychology to know how this all works.

>psychology

That's not a science. It holds as much credence as fortune telling and energy crystals.

>I'm a man
>I've studied psychology
Choose one

Men will always get the shit end of the stick no matter if they're the higher or lesser numbered gender so long as there is a government.
Withotu a government a single man can claim a harem by force even if he's not an "alpha". With a government women are given the power to say no and they will say no to 92% of men even if they're only 100 men to 10k women.

Only if the government/state enforces woman's suffrage, monogamy, etc and so forth.
It's entirely possible to conceive of an actually patriarchial government (as it would literally be, not what feminists like to think the modern day is) where women don't have the same rights as men.
At the risk of sounding /pol/, there are numerous examples of that in the past and in the present, just not in the present west.

Not with a notoriously smaller male population. There has never been a notoriously smaller male population until current year and we're just like 6-8% disadvantaged.

You would have to create an entirelly different society because capitalism and consummerism depend on women being obliviously in the edge of safe and paranoid, with men being miserable and unfulfilled.

You pretty much have to go full Mad Max to remove women's power, even before suffrage they had enough say in household administration and sexual selection as to manipulate their husbands into certain business ventures or chose who their sons would marry.

Women are cunning little cunts that count on the male's instinct to protect them as a weapon against men who don't do what they want.

Explain why it's been given so much legitimacy then

You describe it as if women are a burden, a necessary evil that science should be making obsolete

It really doesn't have any legitimacy, it has a lot of attention but then again: so does communing with the dead. Doesn't mean it actually works.

Yes, but once upon a time those jobs would pay for the wife and kids to be at home. Nowadays, they don't. So the increased workforce has to compete for the same jobs.

Okay deprogram me, why is psychology a myth?

Not really, male/female they're basically the same, in this day and age.

Depending on which way the ratio is slued, you'd get a few more higher gender working in jobs traditionally held by the other. slightly lower birth rates or maybe larger family's), higher rates of unmarried adults, ect...

however things might be a bit more interesting if this happened some time in the past,
(say in 1066 halley's comet, cut down the male birth rate, then flash forward to today, I bet things would be a fair bet different)
or if the shift in ratio was accompanied with something such as a major war for example.

>inb4 /pol/ & feminazis jump on this topic

>or if the shift in ratio was accompanied with something such as a major war for example.

But it happened, WW1 and WW2 killed a lot of young adult men.

Without a significant gender imbalance, we've evolved with 80% of women and 40% of men reproducing. The Chad effect is natural, it would only get stronger.
If anything, a 60f/40m could be the final solution to even things out.