Given below is a graph of the American fertility rate overtime, I just thought it was interesting so I decided to repost it here. There’s nothing that we don’t already know, around the 1950s the fertility rate was at its highest, after which the sexual revolution, increased presence of women in the workplace and in universities as well as a legal framework dedicated to the perpetuation of gynocentrism caused the fertility rates to start plummeting. Women for the most part could depend on either governments or their degrees to earn a living, no longer needing to do so by giving men children at anywhere near the rate that they had. Feminism had a clear impact, what remains to be seen is the impact and mgtow will have or is having. Only time will tell. Future seems bleak
If mgtow can be condensed into any specific idea, it should be the idea that men should know without equivocation that women only wish to reproduce with them and tolerate them for as long as they can get thier needs met through men. Once this ceases to be the case, women would gladly see those same men pitiably begging for scraps of food on the streets. For women, men are a means to an end, they are toasters. Once men stop producing nice brown toasted bread, they get tossed out into the garbage bin and are never given a second thought.
The future seems bleak gentleman. What, I wonder will the future place of men in society be when technology becomes sufficient enough to replace the vast majority of labor, even skilled labor that men provide? an article titled The Age of the Robot Worker Will Be Worse for Men states the following emphasis mine;
Many economists and technologists believe the world is on the brink of a new industrial revolution, in which advances in the field of artificial intelligence will obsolete human labor at an unforgiving pace. Two Oxford researchers recently analyzed the skills required for more than 700 different occupations to determine how many of them would be susceptible to automation in the near future, and the news was not good: They concluded that machines are likely to take over 47 percent of today’s jobs within a few decades.
This is a dire prediction, but one whose consequences will not fall upon society evenly. A close look at the data reveals a surprising pattern: The jobs performed primarily by women are relatively safe, while those typically performed by men are at risk.
It should come as no surprise that despite progress on equality in the labor force, many common professions exhibit a high degree of gender bias. For instance, of the 3 million truck drivers in the U.S., more than 95 percent are men; of the nearly 3 million secretaries and administrative assistants, more than 95 percent are women. Autonomous vehicles are a not-too-distant possibility, and when they arrive, those drivers’ jobs will evaporate; office-support workers suffer no such imminent threat.
This pattern holds for many of the most gender-biased occupations. Men hold 97 percent of the 2.5 million U.S. construction and carpentry jobs. The Oxford study estimates that these male workers stand more than a 70 percent chance of being replaced by robotic workers. By contrast, women hold 93 percent of the registered nurse positions. Their risk of obsolescence is vanishingly small: .009 percent.
What is causing this pattern? The skills exhibited by the coming wave of intelligent machines are better suited to occupations currently dominated by men. Many of the jobs held by men involve perception and manipulation, often in conjunction with physical exertion, such as swinging a hammer or trimming trees. The latest mobile robots combine advanced-sensory systems with dexterous manipulators to successfully perform these sorts of tasks.
Other, more cerebral male-dominated professions aren’t secure either. Many occupations that might appear to require experience and judgment—such as commodity traders—are being outdone by increasingly sophisticated machine-learning programs capable of quickly teasing subtle patterns out of large volumes of data.
By contrast, women typically work in more chaotic, unstructured environments, where the ability to read people’s emotions and intentions are critical to success.
If your job involves distracting a patient while delivering an injection, guessing whether a crying baby wants a bottle or a diaper change, or expressing sympathy to calm an irate customer, you needn’t worry that a robot will take your job, at least for the foreseeable future.
That last part, what a load of bull. Women’s work is not special work, it does not require any real nuance, talent or sophistication. They simply have the neotonous hardware, and the presumption of motherhood stemming from gynocentrism that allows them to be the preferred gender in jobs regarding the supervision of children, even if they aren’t qualified for the job or are less qualified than a man is. But at least now we can start to ask ourselves the question of what society may hold in store for obsolete men, that is, unemployment, poverty and disenfranchisement for all but the top tier of high status men. The article continues:
In short, today’s typical women’s work is what will predominate in future. On a mass scale, this pattern may result in an involuntary shift in the division of labor, with husbands tending to household duties after dropping their wives off at the office.
This is simply not going to happen, women, on a primordial level do not wish to be maintaining a man financially in any capacity. An article titled Would You Date An Unemployed Man? – 75 Percent Of Women Would Not bears out that when and if there are no more jobs to support the vast majority of men due to mechanization, no reorientation of familial duties will occur, men will be swept under the rug and treated like second class citizens. Interesting times we live in.