>>10793The percentage of women that have children fluctuates but it's never been below 80% and sometimes it's nearly zero %
>For example, women in their fertile years during the Great Depression had the highest rate of childlessness in American history: 20 percent. One in three Black women in that cohort—who were dealing with the economic collapse as well as legalized racism—never had children. Two decades later, childlessness fell to almost nothing during the baby boom, which coincided with the most generous social welfare programs in American history.https://nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/without-children-long-history-not-mother-bookbite/42542/And that's just the measure of women who carried children to term. It doesn't count women that had abortions or miscarriages. So the number of women that conceived but decided of their own volition not to carry it to term makes the number of women passing their genes on higher.
>Also I think you’re looking at survivors.Women have HIGHER survivor rates and longer lives than men. You have this imaginary cohort of women that died before they conceive either because of illnesses or injury or neglect all, that disproves my theory that women reproduce at the expense of most men, while ignoring men die at higher rates of all those things.
>The women who did reproduce their DNA is prominentYeah, that's how genes work. The point is ALL women reproduced, while only a fraction of men do.
It's not even, not even close and it's humanity's biggest dirty secret.
>Also, men are expected to die in wars.>In fact there was a theory that there was a massive war that reduced the male population greatlyExactly my point. Men are disposable, and when they're not disposed of, they create a logger jam.
But this is not what's told to me. They're told dating is egalitarian and if they just follow the rules are be a "good person" they'll be partnered. When in reality they need to die in a war so that the next generation of Chad's bastards can be spawned.