I see much talk online of fertility decline, but little mention of e.g. reducing years spent in education, reducing female status/wealth relative to male, abolishing female Civil Wrongs privileges in favor of meritocracy, etc.
Typical "solutions" advocate an arbitrary increase in the quantity of births with no regard for quality, or giving women even more free money, which has never worked and will never work. In fact, the precise opposite is necessary: Make Women Poor Again.
Maybe I will break my lazy hiatus and pen a comprehensive article on this subject. Almost everything I read is myopic, bereft of empirical evidence, or filled with half-baked theories; "it's the... pornography... and uhh... smart phones."
Typical "solutions" advocate an arbitrary increase in the quantity of births with no regard for quality, or giving women even more free money, which has never worked and will never work. In fact, the precise opposite is necessary: Make Women Poor Again.
Maybe I will break my lazy hiatus and pen a comprehensive article on this subject. Almost everything I read is myopic, bereft of empirical evidence, or filled with half-baked theories; "it's the... pornography... and uhh... smart phones."
Female bias in college admissions:
Columbia University's students are approximately 50-55% female, 45-50% male (varying by year).
This is actually one of the colleges where women are less likely to get accepted.
When sorting applicants by SAT score and gender, a consistent pattern emerges: The higher the score, the greater the percentage of male applicants.
1400-1440 = 48.7% male
1450-1490 = 52.5% male
1500-1540 = 55.4% male
1550-1600 = 58.4% male
1400 only = 46.9% male
1600 only = 65.8% male
In 2025, Columbia accepted 2,946 students out of 59,616 applicants.
If this were based on top scores alone, the student body would be ~63% male.
Even going by Columbia's SAT range (1510-1560), the student body would still be something like 60/40 male:female.
Admissions officers are ~70% female and women occupy the majority of roles at all levels of admissions.
Women's in-group gender bias is 4.5 times higher than that of men.
Put a bunch of women in power and they're siding with the girlies ~80% of the time.
Columbia University's students are approximately 50-55% female, 45-50% male (varying by year).
This is actually one of the colleges where women are less likely to get accepted.
When sorting applicants by SAT score and gender, a consistent pattern emerges: The higher the score, the greater the percentage of male applicants.
1400-1440 = 48.7% male
1450-1490 = 52.5% male
1500-1540 = 55.4% male
1550-1600 = 58.4% male
1400 only = 46.9% male
1600 only = 65.8% male
In 2025, Columbia accepted 2,946 students out of 59,616 applicants.
If this were based on top scores alone, the student body would be ~63% male.
Even going by Columbia's SAT range (1510-1560), the student body would still be something like 60/40 male:female.
Admissions officers are ~70% female and women occupy the majority of roles at all levels of admissions.
Women's in-group gender bias is 4.5 times higher than that of men.
Put a bunch of women in power and they're siding with the girlies ~80% of the time.
Couples who work from home at least one day per week have higher fertility rates, as per new study:
0.32 more children per woman in the global data set* and 0.45 more children per woman in the United States data set, versus couples who don't work from home.
WFH accounts for 8.1% of United States fertility (approximately 291,000 births per year as of 2024) and this contribution is greater than that of government spending on early childhood care and education.
* G-SWA first and second world countries, full list in second image.
Source:
Work from Home and Fertility (2026)
https://www.nber.org/papers/w34963
https://doi.org/10.3386/w34963
0.32 more children per woman in the global data set* and 0.45 more children per woman in the United States data set, versus couples who don't work from home.
WFH accounts for 8.1% of United States fertility (approximately 291,000 births per year as of 2024) and this contribution is greater than that of government spending on early childhood care and education.
* G-SWA first and second world countries, full list in second image.
Source:
Work from Home and Fertility (2026)
https://www.nber.org/papers/w34963
https://doi.org/10.3386/w34963
Older-male age gap relationships are more fertile than age-matched relationships.
The effect peaks at 0.25 more children per couple when the husband is 7 years older.
Conversely, couples have 0.75 fewer children when wives are 7 years older.
The effect sizes may seem small, but every couple having 0.25 more children would compound and result in massive population-scale changes in only a few generations.
Unfortunately, older-male age gap relationships have declined since the mid-to-late 19th century, and for this you can thank feminism and anti age gap hysteria.
The effect peaks at 0.25 more children per couple when the husband is 7 years older.
Conversely, couples have 0.75 fewer children when wives are 7 years older.
The effect sizes may seem small, but every couple having 0.25 more children would compound and result in massive population-scale changes in only a few generations.
Unfortunately, older-male age gap relationships have declined since the mid-to-late 19th century, and for this you can thank feminism and anti age gap hysteria.
This compounding effect is also why eugenics programs that focus exclusively on the best-of-the-best may be the wrong approach.
Assuming an IQ heritability of 0.8, a population could increase its national average IQ by one standard deviation in about 7 generations via fertility policies that encouraged:
1.5 TFR for 85 IQ and below
2 TFR for 86-115 IQ
3 TFR for 116 IQ and above
It would take twice as long if the upper IQ bracket threshold was increased to 130.
With more extreme policies — e.g. a one child policy for those of 85 IQ and below and a 5 child policy for those of 130 IQ and above — national average IQ could rise by one standard deviation in just four generations, approximately one century.
As a result, the proportion of people with 130 IQ would rise from ~2% to ~16% of the population, and the proportion of people with genius-tier IQ (~150) would rise from 0.04% to 1%.
However, a far simpler policy could achieve this within the same timescale: One child for everybody below 100 IQ, three to four children for everybody else.
This is all theoretical, of course; the implementation of such policies would be impossible today, and there is more to a society than its average IQ.
Assuming an IQ heritability of 0.8, a population could increase its national average IQ by one standard deviation in about 7 generations via fertility policies that encouraged:
1.5 TFR for 85 IQ and below
2 TFR for 86-115 IQ
3 TFR for 116 IQ and above
It would take twice as long if the upper IQ bracket threshold was increased to 130.
With more extreme policies — e.g. a one child policy for those of 85 IQ and below and a 5 child policy for those of 130 IQ and above — national average IQ could rise by one standard deviation in just four generations, approximately one century.
As a result, the proportion of people with 130 IQ would rise from ~2% to ~16% of the population, and the proportion of people with genius-tier IQ (~150) would rise from 0.04% to 1%.
However, a far simpler policy could achieve this within the same timescale: One child for everybody below 100 IQ, three to four children for everybody else.
This is all theoretical, of course; the implementation of such policies would be impossible today, and there is more to a society than its average IQ.
Telegram
Thuletide
Older-male age gap relationships are more fertile than age-matched relationships.
The effect peaks at 0.25 more children per couple when the husband is 7 years older.
Conversely, couples have 0.75 fewer children when wives are 7 years older.
The effect…
The effect peaks at 0.25 more children per couple when the husband is 7 years older.
Conversely, couples have 0.75 fewer children when wives are 7 years older.
The effect…
Women are becoming (even more) brain damaged due to being choked during sex. Naturally, straight men are blamed for this: "Porn-brained rape culture proliferators!" Data paints a different story.
Women prefer far more "rapey" porn than men.
- Aroused by aggression: 70% of women, 40% of men
- Actively seek aggression 38%, 27%
- Aroused by hard aggression: 35%, 13%
- Aroused by women in pain: 32%, 20%
- Want to see more aggression: 16%, 3%
The gays (incl. troons) exhibit much higher rates of both consensual and non-consensual rough sex behaviors.
Consensual rough sex experiences:
Straight women 51.8%
Straight men 44.2%
Various gays 56.1% to 83.6%
Non-consensual rough sex experiences:
Straight women 18.3%
Straight men 15.1%
Various gays 20.7% to 33.4%
Has choked a partner with consent:
Straight women 8.7%
Straight men 3.8%
Various gays 9.5% to 42%
Has been choked without consent:
Straight women 4.3%
Straight men 2.2%
Various gays 5.1% to 13.5%
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12675731
Women prefer far more "rapey" porn than men.
- Aroused by aggression: 70% of women, 40% of men
- Actively seek aggression 38%, 27%
- Aroused by hard aggression: 35%, 13%
- Aroused by women in pain: 32%, 20%
- Want to see more aggression: 16%, 3%
The gays (incl. troons) exhibit much higher rates of both consensual and non-consensual rough sex behaviors.
Consensual rough sex experiences:
Straight women 51.8%
Straight men 44.2%
Various gays 56.1% to 83.6%
Non-consensual rough sex experiences:
Straight women 18.3%
Straight men 15.1%
Various gays 20.7% to 33.4%
Has choked a partner with consent:
Straight women 8.7%
Straight men 3.8%
Various gays 9.5% to 42%
Has been choked without consent:
Straight women 4.3%
Straight men 2.2%
Various gays 5.1% to 13.5%
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12675731
China's private tutoring ban increased expected total fertility by ~8% in areas where the policy was strongly enforced (from 1.61 to 1.73 children per family).
The following factors explained 43% of the variance: Reduced perceived educational competition between parents; reduced financial and time expenditure; improved parental health and parent-child relationships.
The effect on fertility intention was significantly smaller for mothers (0.03) than fathers (0.13), and for those who spent less time/money on education/tutoring before the ban. It was also slightly smaller for those with a bachelor's degree or above.
A very Asiatic way to increase birth rates, but at least we can extrapolate:
Reduce parental stress + increase time/resource availability = more babies (driven primarily by male fertility intention).
https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueaf096
The following factors explained 43% of the variance: Reduced perceived educational competition between parents; reduced financial and time expenditure; improved parental health and parent-child relationships.
The effect on fertility intention was significantly smaller for mothers (0.03) than fathers (0.13), and for those who spent less time/money on education/tutoring before the ban. It was also slightly smaller for those with a bachelor's degree or above.
A very Asiatic way to increase birth rates, but at least we can extrapolate:
Reduce parental stress + increase time/resource availability = more babies (driven primarily by male fertility intention).
https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueaf096