The Year Is 2052
It is Angry Harry’s birthday.
He is 100 years old today!
Hurrah for Angry Harry!
“Oooo. Aaaggh. Oh, my goodness. My back hurts,” he says.
“Well, you are 100!” says his wife proudly.
“Hhhaaahhhh. That’s better,” he continues, as his wife lovingly props the pillow under him so that he can sit up more comfortably in the bed while he sips his tea.
“Does it still hurt?” she asks kindly.
“Oh yes,” Angry Harry replies. “My muscles are sore from all that lifting yesterday. And that twenty-mile run has made my buttocks ache.”
“Twenty miles?” says his second wife. “That’s nothing for you Angry Harry. You normally do forty!”
“Yes,” Angry Harry replies. “But my new fulsome buttocks haven’t quite grown fully into place yet. And they are somewhat painful.”
“And what lovely buttocks they are,” says his third wife, as she starts to massage them tenderly with perfumed oils and cool, soothing creams.
“And they’ll be putting in your new pair of lungs on Saturday,” says his fourth wife. “So you’ll once again be able to smoke your 500 cigarettes a day. That will surely cheer you up.”
Angry Harry looks at her benignly.
“Such a pretty thing,” he thinks. “But, then again, not much of a brain.”
“Yes, that will definitely cheer me up,” he says, reaching over to tweak her nipple to remind her to pour him his usual morning whisky.
A voice from down the hallway calls out to him.
“What would you like for breakfast Angry Harry?”
It is his fifth wife.
She is his most recent purchase.
And she is definitely the ugly duckling of his little flock.
But she can cook!
And for 150 bucks, you can’t expect everything.
“Hmm. Let me think now,” says Angry Harry. “Bacon, eggs, tomatoes, mushrooms, sausages, toast, waffles, cereal, a side of lamb, and a cup of tea,” he calls back.
LOL
Well. OK. OK. I got a little carried away with how the world will be in 2052.
New buttocks? Hmmm. Maybe.
New lungs? Hmmm. Probably not.
But, many wives?
Hmm. Well.
Perhaps.
You never know!
But, for the moment, let us just call them ‘companions’, ‘friends’, ‘harlots’, ‘servants’, whatever. (See later!)
Human beings will start to reproduce many more females than males.
You see. When you view the forces that are operating in the world today as ‘organisms’, with lives of their own etc etc, then it becomes very clear that, in the not-too-distant future, human beings will start to reproduce many more females than males.
This might sound highly unlikely to some, but, in my view, it is a near certainty. And the main reason for it being a certainty is because the vast majority of men would very much want it to be so.
It is as simple as that really.
What else is there to say?
Think about it.
The men’s movement is growing in power all the time. Bar some catastrophe, it is unstoppable.
An extremely likely future outcome is the production of loads of women!
And, for the sake of clarity, if you think about the influence of the men’s movement as deriving from a single male brain – an average male brain in terms of its desires, but a super male brain in terms of its thinking and, hence, in terms of its achieving powers – then you can surely see that an extremely likely future outcome is the production of loads of women!
Quite simply, by creating societies in which there are many more females than males, men will be much happier and much more fulfilled.
And this is one very good reason why it will happen.
For example, this is surely what a typical man would like to have.
Good physical and mental health. Food. Shelter. Access to women. Peace. Security. Progress. Justice. Access to information. A world fit for his children. A non-violent environment. Things to interest him. Plenty of leisure time. Plenty of friends.
But this list of goodies is also what a typical woman would like to have – even with respect to the fourth item!
After all, women like women too! – as ‘companions’, that is.
And so who, exactly, is going to object very strongly to the notion that many more females than males should be produced by our species? For example, who would object if we arranged matters so that the male:female birth ratio was 1:3?
What organisms out there would oppose such an idea? And why would any organisms oppose such an idea? Hmm. Let’s think about it.
Briefly!
1. Feminists? Surely not. They would like to see the back of us.
2. Lesbian feminists? Nope. They’d love the idea.
3. ‘Ordinary women’? Well. A significant portion of them might complain a bit; but why should they?
Think of the benefits for them.
a. Less violence, crime and mayhem.
b. Less aggressive competition among men for women.
c. Far fewer relationship crimes; domestic violence, rape etc.
d. Far fewer wars.
e. More help with domestic chores.
f. More freedom to go out to work or to stay at home.
g. Far better job opportunities.
g. Loads of female friends.
Well. Thus far, it is a short list. But the world is already looking a zillion times better.
And what would be the disadvantages?
Hmm. Well. There aren’t many disadvantages that I can actually think of.
Now, you might think, Hold on. What about women who want to have monogamous relationships with men?
Well …
i. The women who are alive today are not going to be very much affected by such things. Even if from tomorrow we started to produce a 1:3 ratio, this would not affect young women who are alive today. The number of men available to them would scarcely diminish. But they would soon feel the benefits of the reduction in crime etc as the children of the near future were mostly female. And they would also end up with a lot of available domestic help – both in their middle years and, most importantly, in old age.
ii. The future generations of women could easily be brought up to be totally at ease with the fact that the men were lesser in number. It would not be a problem for them. Indeed, there are many places in the world where men are already and/or have been very few in number – especially after wars. This does not seem to cause much problem for the women, provided that the women can properly earn their keep. Besides which, very few women nowadays are truly monogamous. They tend to go from one partner to the next.
And it simply is not necessary for a woman to have a monogamous relationship with one man throughout her entire life – especially if her life expectancy soars. But there would be nothing to stop her if she wanted to.
But would women really want to remain with the same man for 120 years?
It seems unlikely.
So, why should ordinary women of the future complain about the fact that there were far fewer men?
Well. OK OK. The above is not the greatest analysis of what might happen if the male:female ratio was set at 1:3.
But it’s not a bad one!
And the real point about this piece is this.
Where is the strong opposition going to come from?
Eh?
The purpose of men was to provide brains and brawn.
In a nutshell: The purpose of men was to provide brains and brawn for exploiting the environment and for protecting their women and children from it. The women were designed to reproduce and to look after their children.
And, of course, to make the tea!
But the men have gradually been replacing their own biological functions with metals. Computers are replacing their brains. And various machines are replacing their muscles. And so, in very many ways, there is much less need to have so many men around.
However, men themselves are not actually becoming ‘redundant’ because there is no way that females could possibly do as well as men in many of the important jobs that men do – well, not without turning themselves, effectively, into something that is decidedly non-female.
And an obvious way in which to optimise the future situation for our species is to alter the birth ratio so that it has the best chances for survival.
And if we need fewer men than women, then we do!
Hmm.
Still not convinced, eh?
Then listen closely – because we do not really have a choice.
White, western, heterosexual beings are a dying breed.
We white, western, heterosexual beings are a dying breed. Amongst other things, feminism has killed off the birth rates. And so we now also need more females in the future simply to replace all of that lost stock!
(No offence to blacks, browns or yellows intended.)
And by creating more females in the future, we could increase the number of mothers bearing children very dramatically without worrying about women who would rather spend their time doing other things – perhaps following a career.
In other words, women would be far more free to do as they choose.
Oh Angry Harry. Men are not going to use the technologies to increase the number of women available to them. You are dreaming.
Oh really? But it is already happening!
For example,
Also, look at this! (adults only – sex dolls/robots)
In short, we are already creating more women.
Hi Gerald.
1. Let’s cut out the idea of society forcing anything upon women. Let’s just say that couples are simply free to choose the gender of their own children – which does not seem particularly unreasonable.
On balance, they will choose the gender most likely to bring rewards to the family. If female offspring are more beneficial to them than are males then they will choose to have more females.
Clearly, there will be a long term tendency for some kind of equilibrium to be reached. It all depends on what kind of economy, social structures etc develop in the future. But, whatever they might be, one presumes that if there is a shortage of supply in one area, the value of the gender which provides those goodies will tend to rise.
And, in my view, without going into details, we are heading in the direction of couples choosing to have more females.
My idea of a fixed 1:3 ratio is more of an Angry Harry ‘outrage’ than anything else, e.g. so that I can fool around with humour about polygyny and annoy the feminists etc. However, having said that, 1:3 might eventually not be quite so far off the mark.
2. “The reason why … feminist evil didn’t do well before our modern era is because men were needed much more to survive and women knew it.”
Well. That’s really the same point that I was making in 1. above.
The ‘value’ of the gender is important.
And, of course, in certain parts of the world they sometimes get rid of baby girls because they are less valuable long term to families than are boys.
But this situation could soon reverse – especially in the west.
3. “If there are far more women than men it wont change much, men will still not be respected as humans by wicked women.”
The wicked women will be perfectly free to remain on their own
Then the wicked women will be perfectly free to remain on their own, while the good women will be able to find themselves a man.
Further, of course, the fewer men there are the more valued they will become. (Hence the equilibrium mentioned in 1. above.)
4. “Good Women want one man for a mate because they want that closeness, that bond.”
Yes indeed. But if loads of women do NOT want such relationships this leaves many men effectively out in the cold.
And what about the point of view of men? For all we know, 80% of men might prefer to be polygynous. What about their requirements? Why should they have to pander to what one particular type of woman might or might not want?
5. “A 1:3 ratio will only perpetuate a feminist culture that will lead its society to complete confusion as some will want to live by traditional family values and others will live in their twisted cultural orgy.”
This is already happening – increasingly so.
And, personally speaking, I’m not bothered about people choosing to live in a ‘feminist culture’ so long as that in the process of doing so they do not discriminate against or demonise me or my fellow men, and so long as I can escape – perhaps geographically – into another culture.
And this is one of the reasons why I oppose any ‘big government’ that attempts to inflict one culture on everybody over a huge area of land – especially mine!
The problem for those who wish to ‘inflict’ traditional values all over the place is that it requires the kind of authoritarian government which most people would not want, and which is increasingly impossible these days to design.
Men who sit at screens are increasingly going to exert a huge force.
And if you accept, for the moment, that men who sit at screens are increasingly going to exert a huge force, then you have to look at the brains of such men to see what is likely to come about in the future.
And, in my view, some form of polygyny would appeal to most of them – well, to a large percentage of them.
6. “Also even if you propose this idea, even the most feminist nation will not go for it because even women leaders who hate men know that it takes men to win wars, to build cities etc.”
Yes. But with increasingly powerful technology, fewer men are needed for such things.
7. “Women are more than happy to have the men do all the dirty work. Female leaders will probably breed men as clones for war because to a feminist, that’s all men are good for is expendable meat.”
There’s nothing new in that! Men have been treated this way since Adam and Eve.
Fewer women now have the luxury of spending their days at the hairdresser.
But, in many ways, feminists are doing the opposite to what you say – e.g. they are getting women out to work and joining the military etc. Fewer women now have the luxury of spending their days at the hairdresser and at the beauty parlour and pottering around the garden. That’s what middle-class women used to do when I was young.
The ‘traditional’ ways of doing things was extremely unkind to men. I wouldn’t hanker after them if I was you. You seem to have bought into the feminist-inspired myth that western men were treated much better than women in the past. They weren’t!
Most men were treated abysmally in comparison to most women.
8. “The nation that stays with that idea of going to 3 to 1 women to men will certainly falter and become complacent and weak.”
Possibly. But it all depends on the technology, the economics, and the global situation across the planet etc.
Finally, I spent my undergraduate days in a college which was over 80% female.
Take it from me, it was not a problem!
For a deeper analysis see …
