We'd go extinct. Spiders can have hundreds of offspring per 'birth.' Humans have, on average, about one. You need each woman to have at least 2 children for populations to stay the same. Which, in this case would mean you'd need at least 2 men.
An evolution (or artificial 'population management') where males are 66% likely or otherwise born at a 2:1 ratio wouldn't work because then you need each woman to have 3 children to create a sustainable population, meaning you need an even higher ratio of males - and so on recursively towards infinite male:female ratios.
I mean, it all depends on what you want to assume. You can assume that a woman in this case will have more offspring, and continue reasoning from there.
You mean if a woman could destroy a man for (not) having sex? Men would avoid sex, cohabitation, marriage and families. For society it would mean less babies, demographic and economical decline.
Yep, exactly what is happening in rich countries at the moment.
The human female behavior is much closer to other species than we like to pretend. Because we got too arrogant with our "smartness".
In Russia, China, Japan and many other countries, women are choosing sex with birth control as well as zero sex = forced demographic decline. China just purchased 300,000 fertile young women from North Korea - I wonder if they are allowed birth control or if this is a domestic forced breeding experiment?
No need to wonder, you can already observe the results going on at the moment.
Women don't do outright cannibalism since humans are more sophisticated, but women absolutely kill (figuratively) their mate/husband to extract as much ressource as possible (regardless of them having offspring in needs or not).
They are biologically programmed for that, but we forgot about it and/or we like to pretend this is not happening.
Reality doesn't care much about feeling, and with little countermeasures afforded to the men, birthrate has been going down tremendously in every country where women power has been unmatched.
So, the answer is actually pretty simple: it will die down until the only ones left are the males that found a new "venom" and are willing to use it.
From personal observation I don't think it's worries about the wife getting the house that are stopping people having kids. I think there's more of an issue with the current system encouraging everyone to get high paying jobs and the cost of housing, education and so on getting bit up by those making life hard for anyone who doesn't play along with that system, and hard for anyone who has kids.
I'm not the person you were replying to, but for many men it is more of the divorce issue rather than extracting resources during marriage.
There are horror stories where a wife divorces the man and gets the house, custody of the kids, child support, alimony, etc. Many men just opt to not get married for fear that might happen to them.
They didn't just claim that divorces can have unfavorable results for men which is a trivial claim.
They claimed birth rates are tumbling because women have attained the extractive power mentioned in their post and that, if left unchecked, human society will continue dying down... until all that's left is the sort of man that he likens to the venomous male octopus.
Is a pre-nup not solving exactly this problem? Or is maybe a pre-nup not a thing for various reasons - not known, not acceptable, not possible under local law...
It depends. If you buy the home together after marriage, even if it was entirely the man's money, it can lead to the man losing the house. I don't think a prenup can exempt a man from child support or guarantee custody of the children.
Also, asking for a prenup is not exactly the easiest thing. Can you imagine saying, hey I want to get married, quite possibly saying "till death do us part", but can you agree too this prenup for when we fail. Starting a marriage with the idea that you will fail doesn't seem great to me.
I read that some politicians in a. state (don't remember which), were talking about allowing a couple to remove the right of a no fault divorce, only allow at fault divorces. I think if such a thing becomes a law, that would help boost a lot of confidence for men.
I only know about Andrew Tate because of 2 things: general chatter about him and a small (about 10 min) YouTube critic of him that I randomly watched a few days ago.
He is obviously a despicable character but it's not surprising that he was able to get where he is.
He is the symptom of a general sickness nobody wants to acknowledge, the only ones breaking through are the extreme assholes, nobody listen to the nuanced position and we even tell them they are like those extreme assholes.
Which is exactly what you did, and you very astutely showed exactly that there is a problem and that you are part of the problem.
It's not worth wondering. A core tenant of evolution is that it's a random mutation, and that some random mutation is favorable. It's very Life of Pi, you have to make your own truth out of this because it won't make sense.
