The road towards dolcett world

[Blonner]

I am curious of you can imagine the world reached the gynophagia,or androphagya (or both at same time).
Normally for gynophagia the classic are "over population" because (check any data) there more or less 7 womens for any mans and make "understable". But for male ONLY are a true problem (except a super femminist-mysandric party take over the world),both can be linked with the "over population problem". What are your thougths?

[KaiserDunk]

In regards to overpopulation men are less necessary to maintaining a population level than women, and absent some kind of external catastrophe men become expendable as one man can impregnate any number of women but a woman can only be impregnated once per 9 months or so. Once a woman is pregnant, men become superfluous to her.

[KnightleyPaine]

This is correct, since a single woman can only produce a new human every 9 months, but a single man can inseminate a large amount of women.

The main reason you'd need more men than that is because the woman is reduced in overall work capacity. Humans don't dump their children and make sure the children survive hence we don't spawn entire litters.

However, the modern norm of 'privatizing' childcare is a product of modernity. In older times, rearing children was a communal project, teenagers' will tend to wake and stay up later giving them a natural guard shift for the community at later hours, while the elderly wake and sleep earlier for the same reason for early hours of the day. Even in medieval ages, it was common for children to be raised by the entire village in the sense that they would explore around and be shown the work of adults and gain lessons from a multitude rather than from just their parents, in that sense, since women wouldn't be constantly pregnant, the actual need for men can be further diminished.

This reflects biologically as well, men are more likely to develop diseases or health issues that are genetic, because they have XY chromosomes. If one of the X chromosomes on a woman has defects, she has a 2nd X as "backup" to give her blueprint a better chance at a healthy development, whereas men don't have that backup and are more susceptible to mutations and genetic defects. This does help evolution since the less 'genetically stable' men can be used to experiment on what mutations stick, and the more stable health women can survive better to preserve the species even if a bunch of men die in some generations.

Or at least that's what I think I learned when this was still my thing, science develops over time and memory fades.

The road to a gynophagia scenario could be linked to the XY weakness, where a widespread disease diminishes the supply of men and keeps their population down, which would lead to the women being expendable, or in a very far future the birth ratio shifts heavily to producing women (they already occur somewhat more common naturally).

However, gynophagia doesn't have to come from patriarchy (and androphagia from matriarchy either), as patriarchy in our time is fully responsible for its disadvantages for men as well, such as labeling them as the ones to go to war, or to have the short end of the stick in custody battles - everything a MRA complains about is in truth something a feminist cares about as well. A matriarchy is fully capable of class struggle where powerful women keep privileges and protections while designating disenfranchising other women to be expendable.

[Blonner]

Interesting, tecnically have tot numbers of mans mean can there genetic variety (normally the minimum number are, if i remember 250/500, much few)...but a question can be socially how can be explained?