What: I aim to fix the bullshit about women on /pol/ with facts

Why: most on all /pol/s seem to either think like simps (delusion) or think women are pure evil (idiocy)

Fact #1: The total fertility rate required for a population to avoid extinction is 2.7 (https://phys.org/news/2025-04-kids-woman-population-survival-reveals.html)

Fact#2: In most modern societies men do not have the power to decide when to reproduce. The law clearly states women decide when to date, marry, fuck and reproduce. If you don't like it the entire police force will assault you with overwhelming force until you obey.

Fact #3: Nature designed women to be physically much weaker than men, so any individual woman would be overpowered by any one man wishing for offspring

Fact #4: There is no birth control in nature, which means 1 kid per year is the natural expected average rate for any living woman from 14 to 35+.

That's an average rate. That means that for every woman that has 0 kids another needs to have 5.4 just to avoid extinction. For significant population growth the TFR needs to be around 6. That means for every woman with 0 kids, another needs to have 12, or that for every woman with only 3, another needs to have 9, etc.

Fact #5: When any woman has an option to do anything other than having kids, she will pick this option. Even if she's rich. As a group, women will not have 3+ kids if they have that choice.

A child:

-largely decreases a woman's sexual value to men

-is a high burden/danger for the woman, economically, physically and psychologically

-is simply less profitable than any other option the woman has in a non-agrarian society where she has the option of birth control and to perform any other productive activity

Thus any woman who has 3+ kids is acting entirely irrationally in a modern society, while any onlyfans unmarried career-college-roastie is just following the most rational decision-making available to her.

Examples:

Gazans/Yemenites/Subsaharian africans: tfr 6+. Arranged marriages at age 12-14, no birth control, no higher education, mostly rural lifestyles, no female power

Amish. Tfr: 4-6+. Marriage by age 18, no birth control, no higher education, rural lifestyles, no female power

In short, the minimum requirements for TFR 6 are:

>no higher education for the vast majority of BOTH men and women

>a rural lifestyle for the majority of the populace (all urban centers have TFR rates below replacement in most of history)

>no birth control whatsoever

>mandatory marriage before age 18 for 90%+ of the population

>no divorce (just the possibility of divorce can put childbirth on hold)

Typical-counterarguments:

>women are whores

And thank god they are. We can track that most of reproductive health in urban Europe in the last few centuries comes from single moms violating social expectations to get knocked up. Europeans would have gone extinct long before discovering America if women were not whores.

Women want to be fucked as much as you want to fuck them. That's natural. The problem is a man can fuck and go to sleep with no worries whatsoever. A woman needs to operate a dangerous social choice every time she fucks unless she uses technology like birth control, despite being equally horny, so why wouldn't she? This is why marriage exists. It turns a woman from a "whore" to "your whore" who no one can touch and who has to act chaste in public as well. This is likely what nature intended by making men stronger than women.

>muh soviets in 1950 and muh Mongolia in 2025

Both have/had rapidly falling TFR, even if the TFR was "high" at any given point. Not only TFR has to be high at any given moment, but it also has to be growing or stable. You can have dropping TFR with a temporarily growing population, until suddenly you get population collapse. Both Mongolia and the Soviets started with a highly rural/agrarian population, performed a lot of pro-natal policies, but in both cases once women achieved any labor participation and education, the TFR began dropping rapidly. Other examples of nations that had recently healthy, but falling TFRs: North Korea, Iran, Turkmenistan

Any nation with a tfr below 4-5 (slow growth) is endangered already and heading for future contraction-stagnation.

>muh Christianity

Christianity has a mediocre TFR record compared to other traditional populations. Christian fundamentalism raised acceptable marriage ages while Jewish fundamentalism did the exact opposite, with predictable results. Renaissance and 19th century Christian Europe had a tfr of around 5, but it also had the high child mortality of pre-modern societies. That puts the TFR with surviving children to around 3-3.5, barely enough to a slow population growth. Meanwhile the likes of India and China have had a TFR of 8-9 for decades simply by following natural human tendencies while still having marriages and "civilization". Pre-Christian Romans had an estimated TFR of 6-7 due to marrying girls at 11-12. Post-Christian romans had a population decrease and population replacement by migration (!)

"Christian" Finland went from 4.4 to 5.5 millions in the same time India went from 300 to 1.3 billion. It's a 1/4 increases vs a 4x increase.

Same comparison between christian Greece and Turkey.

Biblically accurate christians are better referenced by the Amish today.

>muh pedophilia makes young brides a bad idea

factually, most men aren't pedophiles. This has been easily tested in lab settings. The average man requires secondary sexual characteristics for arousal, characterized by estrogenic fat tissue, developed female bone structure and other cues. Nature can be reliably used to assess reproductive fitness without worrying about pedophiles (who are a mentally ill minority)

>>13629485

it's not going to get to be higher than 8 billion. It's going down to 4-6 billion and crashing every developed economy on the way there

>>13629493

>basically, you want Europeans to live the life of (sand)niggers, that sucks.

Or ancient greeks or romans. Or the amish. You got options

> what nazis did

not functional long term. 19th century german christianity managed a 5-ish, so that might be the best, but ultimately it was already considered painfully decadent by the contemporaries and it still requires monarchies at the very least, with peasantry

>>13629515

Indian demographics is hitting 2.2, which means they're on the way down. With a population above a billion even 2.5 would create a massive imbalance.

>>13629524

No i wrote it with my own two hands. I didn't even consult any AI. Pretty cool to know i'm this amazing though

>>13629540

This is the only thread that matters and women in it are irrelevant. This just factually explains the direct consequences of current ideology about women. You can organize society the way you prefer, even getting everyone to wear clown outfits. But you need to begin making birth control illegal and giving people free countryside land and grants if they are young and married if you want kids.

>>13629545

>>13629558

>>13629538

You people have mentally ill delusions. No one is sterile. Women just abort kids. Do you people not have sex? Even using condoms your girl gets pregnant every time you don't put it snug enough. People are just either on pills, have abortion pills in the cabinet, IUDs, or use condoms without fail. Or don't date in the first place because they don't feel good enough. Nothing is stopping TFR 6 besides societal behaviors.

>>13629582

correct

>>13629583

Can you psycho shills find your own /x/ equivalent instead of bothering me and my thread? Fucking niggers

>>13629724

>Were way above that requirement and have been for centuries.

I guess you have better data than everyone else in the world then

> I can go to any 3rd world country and buy a wife.

So you can't even read the line you're quoting, which speaks of "MOST" and "MODERN" societies. No one puts in doubt that some mostly rural jungle dweller in Indonesia will consider it a jackpot to get a free green card.

>>13629812

>maybe we won't, though

Look at the picture i put in OP. There is no avoid population collapse unless an absolutely massive tendency inversion happen, like all of China forcing all women to give birth yearly. That's extremely unlikely however.

> its the burden of every guy worth his salt to go out and produce 6+ offspring

it's simply impossible, also most guys won't sacrifice their lives to "pump kids" with women who already have 1 or 2.

You don't get TFR. TFR is 2.7 for survival when you consider ALL wombs as available. Every womb needs at least 2.7 kids to come out of it on average for the population to avoid extinction. A guy who has 6 kids with 3 women only gave those women a TFR of 2 in total. He needs those three women to produce at least 2.7x3, so 8.1 kids total. If you have 10 kids with 10 women, you still gave them a TFR of 1. If other men then avoid those women because they're single moms, you effectively ruined the national TFR, damaging your nation's fertility even as you produced 10 kids. Chads are race-killers. Chad behavior is biologically a racially suicidal behavior, because pump&dump behavior is.

The ONLY reproductively fit behavior young marriage, no divorce, and no birth control. Every single society with high populations and high historical fertiliy has practiced that behavior. All others didn't survive enough to appear in historical records.

>>13629818

Finally, a response using rationality and critical thinking.

The OP thread is already easygoing. People don't get that after 20 years at a lot TFR, like Italy's 1.2, means you are going to HALVE the amount of available wombs in 20 years (approximately the fertile range of a woman). With half the available wombs (where we are today) even a TFR of 3 isn't enough to maintain a stable population. You need that 5.4 TFR for every woman, which as you note, would be 6 kids on average. Even millions of migrants don't change that trend. Millions of migrants replace the already missing workers today, not the loss of wombs. Migrant women who immigrate in a 1.2 TFR country do not maintain their native TFR, they take on the 1.2 that's given by local social conditions, unless you allow them to form colonies of only their own culture.

So with immigration or not, a TFR below 2.7-3 equals the collapse of your country.

All it takes is keeping a low TFR for 20 years, where you don't experience any negatives at all. In fact you get MORE workers, because families have less kids to occupy their time and both sexes work at lower wages. Then society starts preferring having less kids because they only see benefits to themselves from doing it. Employers squeeze families more because they can.

Then you have a slow trend inversion (where we are today) where you experience a modest worker shortage (10-15%), and then you have flat-out collapse, where worker shortages reach 50-60% in an increasingly shorter amount of time (next 10-15 years.) You can use migrants to pad 10-15% easily. 50-60% is impossible, especially if you're lookin for skilled workers. It's why every low TFR country wants to poach indian graduates as fast as possible.

>>13629818

In a country like the US you'd have to hire at least 50 million wombs to make a difference, for 20+ years of wages, medical, retirement… even the US government doesn't have that sort of cash flow. In fact they're cutting costs as we speak. It's never ever going to happen. All a government wanting to save the country can do is give out free land, free houses and loans for people to live semi-profitable rural lifestyles with remote jobs. Essentially you need communism on steroids or a collapse of institutions.

>>13629832

this was meant for >>13629827