This is the conclusion reached by scientists:https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/toward-individualistic-reproduction-solving-the-fertility-crisis-could-require-a-further-marginalization-of-men/F26A4750B666344157278B72CFC5D223Basically, women in modern societies want to have more kids, but they are not able to find men who are attractive/appealing enough to serve as fathers. So, we have a situation where the top 1% of men are having nearly 300 sex partners on average (and 20% of all male/female sexual pairings), and the bottom ⅓rd of men get 2.8% of the sex. However, top percentile men mostly have sterile sex which does not result in children. This is causing birth rates to plunge. The solution is to make it easier for women to become single moms, with greater state and corporate support.>While it might be uncomfortable, it is crucial to acknowledge that female emancipation required a return to the marginalization of the least sought-after men. Male marginalization, here, denotes the exclusion of men from pair-bonding and reproduction. Since the First Sexual Revolution around 1200 had imposed lifelong monogamy, Westerners had lived in societies with exceptionally strong pair-bonding egalitarianism. A high proportion of men could secure a mate, which had not been common for our species.>Reverting to such stark mating inequality may feel inappropriate to contemporary sensibilities. However, in the pop-cultural discourse surrounding the mating crisis, some have expressed strong intuitions for why female emancipation has cost some men dearly. A widely circulated meme distilled this view memorably: “The real reason we have a male loneliness epidemic is because marriage was DEI for men”
>never give up anything and always suck and takeHow feminine
>>534198944> The solution is to make it easier for women to become single moms, with greater state and corporate support.How does that balance with the cost children of single mothers being retards and criminals?
>>534199184There's no proof that single motherhood causes those outcomes by itself. You're confusing causes with effects. When 70 IQ ghetto women act as single moms, of course their kids will turn out retarded. We're talking about 115-130 IQ responsible career women with substantially better genes.
>>534198944the people who wrote this article aren't scientists, you can tell that immediately when you click on their names and see what other articles they've made on CUP.My guess is they get paid by clickbait websites to drag CUP's name through the mud with bullshit publicized articles that can be quoted to make humans get mad for clicks.There wasn't a single bit of scientific observation. There wasn't a study or scientific thought that went into the publication of this article.I'd write letters to people that fund the Cambridge press to get their funding cancelled over this btw, but I don't live in the UK.I can't stand shit like this, it gives science as a whole a bad name when bad faith shlock gets published.
>>534199369So you're saying 115-130 IQ women, who are a statistically tiny percentage, would decide to be single mothers if the government just becomes daddy?
>>534199369>115-130 IQ responsible career women
>>534198944How about we remarginalize women instead? Problem solved.
>>534198944Population collapse can not come soon enough.
>>534199820Listen here faggot, strong independent women would rather become government dependent incubators instead.
>>534199488The stats are solid and have been repeated in other papers in recent years. You have to deal with the fact that the top decile of men are having 60% of the sex but that very few kids are resulting from these pairings. This is becoming a social crisis.
>>534199369If you measure success by the child not being severely damaged by domestic abuse, single mother families are second only to lesbian couples at being awful. The push for single mothers is a push for the degradation of the entire human race.
>women don't want a husband because men are too poor after men have been economically raped for a century>we better economically rape men even moreQuite literally there are two choices to increase birthrate>mass breeding farms with women chained like cowsor>remove women's right to vote, work and be educated past a middle school levelThat is it
>>534199488Science is already buckbroken
>>534198944>“The real reason we have a male loneliness epidemic is because marriage was DEI for men”If they knew the violence to come if things don't change they wouldn't be quite so smug about this.
>>534200344The "DEI for men" thing doesn't really work as a comparison. The intention of monogamy is to have the mating pairs provide for the children. If you don't do that you get something like Africa where you live in mud huts or you have a slave society where the rulers have harems and the slaves provide by working the fields.
>>534199488basically foids trying to blame men, just taking time to pretend to be scientists first in the hope their authority could change the laws of physics
>>534200094Even middle school might be too much. I'm not sure if women should even be taught to read.The first feminist writings by women appeared as soon as christkikes started teaching them to read and write in somewhat large numbers in the middle ages.
>>534200094there's only one thing that can provably workbut nobody's willing to even think of it yet
>>534198944>Marriage was DEI for menSo they just flatly admit that DEI is unfair and unjust by their own logic?
>>534200580>Women have no incentives or even policies or laws which would encourage staying married in globohomo jew clownworld The institution of marriage is meaningless and pointless if the society in question does everything possible to punish men who attempt it. No marriage should be taking place without a prenuptial agreement to protect the man. No woman who is unwilling to take up that deal is marriage material. This is the way.
>>534200580So like the handmaid's tale, but flip the genders?
>>534200344Nobody takes those kinds of threats seriously anymore, because it's obvious that modern males are too weak and pathetic to take collective action on behalf of their own gender. Especially since they would be violently opposed by the top ⅕th of men who are currently getting ¾ths of the sex. Those men include most of the fittest, wealthiest, and most capable males.
>>534198944>birth rate>crisisI've never seen something shilled so hard in the face of all rational thought and logic as birtherism.What's funny is that it's essentially boomers just panicking about having enough labor to wipe their mouths and assed in the next 30 year vs you starting some nuclear family kino.
>>534201479Ok great and are they going to drive the trucks, do the menial work, fix the pipes, build the buildings?
>>534201574Those jobs are still being done. Again, nobody believes that less-desirable men will be able to act en masse by suddenly quitting their jobs. They will continue to function as cogs until they expire. That reality may be depressing to you, but it's a fair prediction based on actual observed trends.There is a lot LESS male unrest/labor strikes/etc. than there were a century ago, when most men were married and had families.
>>534198944That's why men are checking out of society at an alarming rate.
>>534198944>The solution is to make it easier for women to become single moms, with greater state and corporate support.I don't really see how that helps. Top percentile men will keep having sterile sex regardless, unless you also abolish mandatory child support from males and automatically disinherit any potential bastards.
>>534198944>The solution is to make it easier for women to become single moms, with greater state and corporate support.That sounds completely retarded. Imagine a society entirely composed of niggers, that's why you are asking.
>>534200094You could be more creative. First, regulate prostitution so single men can have access to sex while doing most of the actual work, meanwhile the top 1% men breed with as many women as possible. Finally, breeders are encouraged to live in communes with other women and homosexual men, where children are raised collectively. Once children grow up they can choose to become wagies, chads or breeders.Please ignore how this sounds like Brave New World but worse.
>>534199369Do you really think a single mom who has been at work all day is going to be able to be as good of a parent as a dedicated stay at home mom? These kids are raised by the underpaid daycare workers.
>IVF will solve ferrtility
All those men raised by single moms are the ones staying the fuck away from women.
>>534202915wtf im a fag and i dont want to live with foids im more than capable of fending for myself bro
>>534203438Then you become a wagie. >WagiesDo all the work, live outside the commune.>BreedersDon't work, purely have children and raise them in communes.>Nurturers Help raise children without having them.>ChadsHave as many children as possible.>WhoresBecome sterilized, provide sex services to wagies (it's illegal to raise children outside the communes).
>>534198944Western """men""" won't do shit because they're history's biggest cucks lmao
>>534198944So they want to debase women by artificially fertilizing them on an industrial level? So much for equal rights, KEK!Should have kept your comfy tradwife positions instead of demanding yet more you dumb roasties.
>>534203201Every IVF kid I know is a non-functioning, non-verbal retard that will need someone else to care for them forever.
>>534198944
>>534198944Lol and they wonder why more and more men are remaining celibate? There are literally zero benefits to being in a relationship nowadays. All the positive stuff lies in being celibate.>no nagging>no heartbreak>no STDs>can do whatever I want, whenever I want>saving money>no random dates>have your own schedule>no "tests"Prove me wrong.
>>534199977The problem is that those stats don't by themselves make their proposed solution viable or sensible. I could easily say "send women to ranches to be breeding sows like in a hentai". How is that be any less viable or sensible solution based on and in the context of the cited statistics?
>>534198944It's obvious that "low value men" are going to have to be paid more or their societies will collapse. Taxing "low value men" and paying single moms to raise bastard children isn't working. There is a reason the collapse started after the Great Recession and not before. The section on dating apps is just to distract people from the ultimate cause: capitalism.
>>534198944https://youtu.be/TxJE72MTeOE
>>534199184The statistics got skewed because blacks reject marriage. Those kids got screwed up not because their mom is single but because their mom is black
>>534198944Giving women gibs and jobs they never earned is exactly why we have a declining population. Doing more of the same bullshit will exacerbate the situation. When men had more say in the dating world the women got married young and had more children.
>>534198944I thought that this was a joke article but it's real. The men (specifically the native men in their respective countries in the West) keep the lights on and the pay the taxes required to subsidize all the bullshit jobs and pay all the benefits to maintain the welfare states. What's the point in working if the lemon isn't worth the squeeze?
>>534206185The problem is that women literally cannot produce the first oxytocin hit required to initially find a male attractive unless they need resources from him in order to survive or he's stronger than the other males despite her not needing resources. Do you see the problem? The solution is simple, but it would collapse every economy on earth. Pulling women from the workforce and property ownership.
>>534198944Women kill their children in masses, this wouldn’t work
>>534199369You think a child missing 50% of their parental care, guidance, support is going to be a shot in the dark and worth trying? LOL.
>>534198944Women will settle for men who don't drive Ferraris, or they will die childless and alone. This is how it is and nothing is going to change that.
>>534199777mfw this shit probably pays six figures
>>534206483most australians arnt rich enough to pay 45% taxes. income tax caps at 50% but only when you hit 250k. to be paying 45% you would need to be making at least 200k and in a country where 60k is average and 52k is minimum. 45% is closer to how much tax you pay per year from all sources.
