Over the past week I have spent some considerable time mulling - and arguing - over the issue of whether or not we will, one day, start to reproduce more females than males of our species - something which I call jiggering the gender ratio. And, as a result, I am now even more convinced that this will happen, and should happen, largely because the counter arguments to such a proposition seem to remain incredibly weak in comparison to those that favour it.

There are plenty of objections that can be levied against the proposition that people should be allowed to choose the gender of their own offspring and also against the notion that it would be beneficial to humans if this was to lead to a surfeit of females over males. But these objections seem so trivial in comparison to the benefits that seem likely to accrue as a result of altering the gender ratio that they are unlikely to carry much sway for very long.

Broadly speaking, the question can be divided into two parts.

1. Would creating a surfeit of females be of benefit to us?

2. Will we actually create a surfeit of females eventually?

And, in my view, the answer to both parts is Yes.

There are numerous reasons why human societies might be better off if there was an excess of females over males - perhaps around the order of 15%.

Here are two of them.

i. When it comes to crime, violence, war and general delinquency, males are clearly more involved in such things than are females. And they seem more prone to engaging in them at an early age.

Boys like guns. Girls like dolls.

A reduction in the proportion of males is therefore likely to reduce the amount of mayhem that generally takes place.

Furthermore, the evidence strongly suggests that young men who have established steady relationships with women are far less prone to delinquency. And with a female surfeit of some 15%, young men are far more likely to find themselves in steady relationships. 

ii. Given that sex and intimacy are both extremely powerful motivators for men, a surfeit of females would also likely lead to a reduction in sex-assault, domestic violence, rape, prostitution and a host of other associated evils.

The counter-argument that women are just as bad as men but that they simply tend to use different mechanisms to achieve their wicked ends is almost certainly a valid one, but unless it is the case that women are actually worse than men in provoking disorder, disharmony and mayhem, then altering the gender ratio in their favour is not going to make matters worse.

i. Men will always be needed to do the jobs that they are particularly good at doing.

This, of course, is true. But the kind of intelligence and skills that men possess are gradually being replaced by computers and their muscles are being replaced by machines. As a consequence of this women are becoming more able to carry out the tasks that originally could only be done realistically by men.

Furthermore, as women need to devote less of their lives to reproduction and child-rearing (for a number of reasons; e.g. artificial wombs) they will increasingly move into the workplace. Overall, therefore, the particular skills and inclinations that were once found mostly in men will increasingly be found in women.

As such, men will become relatively less important than they once were (vis-a-vis women) when it comes to maintaining and progressing the societies in which they live.

For example, driving a car nowadays is just as easy for a woman as it is for a man.

(In the old days, this was not the case.)

Furthermore, the argument that men will always be needed for tasks that are best suited to men (perhaps programming computers) because the human race will always keep striving in order to better its situation is somewhat irrelevant to the issue, because the argument is not that men will be completely redundant, it is simply that a gender imbalance of around 15% would be of benefit.

And given that the overlap between men and women in terms of the jobs that can be done just as effectively by either has increased - and continues to increase - the fact that some jobs will remain more suitable for men is not a particularly good argument for maintaining a gender balance of one-to-one.

ii. Evolution (or Nature) has determined that a one-to-one ratio of gender births is best for human survival and that, as such, it is best not to tinker with this ratio.

This argument fails on many fronts.

Firstly, there is no real evidence to suggest that Evolution has any interest in being of benefit to human beings.

Secondly, the 'natural' one-to-one ratio is the result of simple Mathematics rather than because of anything else.

Given that human reproduction is sexual, that the duration of human childhood is relatively long, and that human females are unable to conceive more than one or two offspring at a time, the one-to-one ratio arises because this is the optimum way in which human genes can reproduce themselves.

In other words, groups of humans that produce a near one-to-one ratio will reproduce more of their own genes than will those that do not.

Maths!

Besides which, the ratio is not exactly one-to-one. Some 5% more males than females are born; with the balance being somewhat restored by the higher death rates for male infants. 

Thirdly, arguments of the type that suggest that 'Nature knows best' could equally be applied to just about everything that humans do when it comes to tinkering with Nature. And so, for example, from this simplistic notion it could be argued that all forms of contraception should be banned, diseases and infirmities should not be cured, and natural environments should never be cultivated.

In other words, the argument that Nature knows best when it comes to benefiting humans does not always carry much weight.

Fourthly, the evolution of humans has largely taken place in environments and circumstances that differ massively from those that exist today. As such, it is not necessarily the case that what was beneficial to human development in the past as a result of evolution will necessarily be beneficial in the future.

Fifthly, given that humans are the product of evolution, it is just as valid to argue that any direction that they take as a result of their minds (e.g. jiggering the gender ratio) is, itself, a product of evolution.

In general, therefore, the simple argument that 'evolution knows best' does not actually say anything worth saying.

This is not to say that evolution is not a powerful force and that the understanding of it does not illuminate the processes that gave rise to what inhabits the Earth today, but, on its own, the argument that evolution knows best is completely vacuous when it comes to determining what might be best for humans as they move into the future. 

iii. If there were more women than men then women would be more powerful than men and they would oppress them in various ways.

Well. There are a number of points to be made here.

Firstly, it is not the case that a larger group of people will always be able to exert undue power over a smaller group of people. Indeed, there are numerous examples both present and past where minorities, even small ones, have wielded huge power over those in the majority.

Current examples of this would include the way in which various minority groups such as feminists and gays have wielded power over non-feminists and heterosexuals.

Similarly, men have managed to exert power over women even when their numbers have been drastically reduced e.g. through war.

And, of course, the various governing elites that have existed throughout history have wielded enormous power over their majority subjects.

Secondly, it is very often the case that power accrues to those people in the minority precisely because they are in the minority. Indeed, the more rare are types of desirable persons or objects, the more do they tend to be valued.

If, for example, there is a shortage of plumbers, then their value rises - as do their earnings. And the same sorts of things would be true if there was a relative shortage of men.

As such, the argument that a small surfeit of women would necessarily reduce the power of men seems somewhat tenuous.

Indeed, the very fact that men seem so 'expendable' in many circumstances today surely supports quite strongly the notion that there are just too many of them.

Thirdly, given that women wield their power mostly through manipulating men, then it follows that if there are fewer men for them to manipulate then this power will be correspondingly reduced.

Fourthly, it seems reasonably clear that psychology determines to a very large extent the way in which people acquire and exert power. And it is through psychology that people can be influenced. And so, for example, even one person alone can exert huge power and influence over the way in which people conduct themselves.

For example, when the Pope or the President speaks, millions of people will listen.

In summary, the power and influence of a particular group does not correlate particularly well with its size.

Yes, for a number of reasons; some of which have been alluded to above and which, basically, boil down to this.

There is much to be gained by creating a surfeit of females and nothing to fear from it.

But there are further factors at work which will add significantly to the impetus to create more females. And these largely stem from the fact that both men and women would likely feel far happier if there were more females than males.

From the female point of view, an excess of females would not only lead to a more peaceful existence, it would allow women to have more choices when it comes to the workplace and in terms of child-rearing - much as it does in polygynous situations.

From the male point of view, an excess of females would help to reduce the enormous number of problems that they experience in association with sex and relationships.

For example, women who join dating agencies receive 32 times more approaches than do men. And the same sort of gross imbalance probably arises in most other circumstances involving matters to do with finding relationships. As such, women would barely notice the tiny 'decline of interest' in them that might result from them being in a majority by 15%.

But men could benefit significantly from it.

However, even more importantly, there is the positively enormous drive that men, as a whole, have when it comes to wanting intimate relationships or just plain sex with women.

For example, women are highly sexually attractive to men. So much so is this true, that thousands of men every year do not seem to think about the consequences of their sexual actions. Hundreds of thousands will lose their careers, or their marriages, or their children, or their liberty, or their status, or their credibility, or their health, or their money, or their lives, just for some sex! 

This probably arises from the fact that all men currently living on the planet are the direct descendants of men with very powerful sex drives. Those men who did not have such powerful sex drives produced far less offspring and, statistically speaking, their descendants are just not here.

So, it is very clear that thousands of men are suckers for sex. But they will also risk a great deal simply to be able to fantasise about sex e.g. they are often caught smuggling pornography through customs or hauling down photos from the Internet and risking their jobs.

And, as we know, pornography is one of the major attractions on the internet.

It is worth billions of dollars.

And because women are so desirable in the eyes of men, there will always tend to be a huge force that will be created by men that will be designed to give them greater access to women.

Indeed, the enormous production of porn is, in fact, the very beginning of the production of more females - yes, just images of them, for the moment - but it's a start!

And the revolutions taking place currently in both technology and biology will give men the opportunity not only to increase the number of images, but also to increase the number of specimens!

Indeed, the technology will also allow them to create a psychological force of unprecedented magnitude and the biological know-how will allow them to bring about what they desire.

How, exactly, this will all unfold is anybody's guess. But, broadly speaking, the following scenario seems likely.

a. In the near future people will demand the right to choose the gender of their own offspring. They will win this right eventually whether the powers-that-be like it or not. Furthermore, at some stage, choosing the gender of one's offspring will simply involve something like ensuring that the sperm of the chosen gender is the one that ends up fertilising the egg. In other words, the procedures involved in choosing the gender will be relatively simple and they will not involve aborting embryos.

b. When people start choosing the gender of their offspring the actual choices that they make will mostly depend upon the psychology that prevails at the time. If this causes people to choose in favour of one gender over the other, then, quite simply, this will happen, and the result will be that more of one gender than the other will be born.

This will occur even if only a significant proportion of the population decides to make any choice at all. In other words, the gender ratio could be altered even if most people decided not to choose the gender of their own offspring.

c. The Men's Movement (or, if you prefer, the organism that caters for 'men') is going to grow and grow. And (more ordinary) 'men' are going to exert much more power over Nature and over the population than they have ever done before. One consequence of this will be a massive drive towards the creation of means whereby men have greater access to women. And one (non-aggressive) method through which this can clearly be achieved is by creating a psychology which gives rise to significant numbers of people choosing to give birth to more females than males.

How, exactly, this latter will come about, I do not know.

But, come about, it will!

18/11/04

Marriage In Japan About half Japan's single women from 35 to 54 have no intention of ever marrying.

As I have often said over the past two years, marriage (just like all traditional institutions of 'coercion' and restriction) are crumbling.

As such, readers ought to discount the pontifications of various men's activists who argue that the solutions to our societal problems lie in the promotion of marriage.

They are looking backwards rather than forwards.

And they are living in a dream world.

The solutions lie in the spread of information and the growth of the men's movement.

And when it comes specifically to gender relations, they also lie in disempowering government (the enemy of all men) in the area of intimate relationships, jiggering the gender ratio and destroying most of the burgeoning abuse industry.

And with regard to the gender ratio issue, I do not want to receive any more emails concerning the notion that if there were 15% more women than men then men would be further disempowered.

This is just not the case.

For example - and generally speaking - a bunch of 20 men would not find it very hard to exert huge power over 23 women; should they desire to do such a thing. Further, the power that these men could exert would actually be LESSENED if there were also 23 of them! 

And it would lessen even further if there were 26 of them! 

No. Not in every single circumstance that one can imagine.

Yawn.

But, on balance, in the main, and on the whole, this would be the case in most of the circumstances that actually occur in the real world.

So, no more emails please suggesting that a 15% surfeit of females would inevitably disempower men; because this is utter nonsense.

And, presumably, it derives from the simplistic notion that men and women compete with each other. Well, yes they do, to some extent, but nowhere nearly to the same extent as is the competition among themselves.

Men, by and large, compete with men, not with women!

They also compete for women.

And they are also hugely influenced by women, in one way or another.

And the same sort of thing can be said about women vis-a-vis men.

As a result of these three factors - and without going into detail - in the real world, 20 men would have relatively much more power - both individually and collectively - in comparison to 23 women than would 26 men.

Fundamentally, with 20 men and 23 women, the men would need to compete less with each other while the women would need to compete more. And if such an imbalance was reflected throughout the whole of society, the effect would be enormous.

And, while on the subject, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the more that men are happy with their lot, the more happy will everyone else tend to be. There can surely be very little doubt about this.

As such, if it is also the case that men would be happier if they were in a minority, then there is absolutely no strong reason not to head into this direction. And if there were any problems that did arise from this, then, firstly, it seems likely that they would be exceedingly minor, and, secondly, so what?

So, there might be some problems!

Big!

Deal!

You deal with the problems.

That's what you do!

And the official view of this website, henceforth, is that jiggering the gender ratio to provide a 15% surfeit of women would make people much happier.