If the top 20% of men are doing 80% of the reproducing then why

>>36437968
Women still contribute 50% of the genome.

>>36437968
Only the top percent of women produce Chads. If a Chad bangs a non-Stacy, it doesn't make another Chad.

A lot of Chad's sons are raised by single mothers, sucks and beta providers, which ends up producing handsome spergs, betas, cyborgs and whatnot.

>>36437968
Parents ruin their sons with poor upbringing. Nature + Nurture.

>>36437968
They're not doing 80% of the reproducing though. They're doing 80% of the fucking. Women know thanks to medical science that it's hard to keep a bastard secret so most of the time they do end up having kids with the beta provider, not Chad.

File: 1492647232997.jpg (46KB, 540x508px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 540x508px

Haven't you noticed all Dads are chads?
>Chad Dad Marries Beta femlet
>has son
>come out beta manlet
Many such a case

>>36437968
Chads rarely reproduce. Contraceptives were a mistake.

>>36437968
>If the top 20% of men are doing 80% of the reproducing then why are so many men NOT Chads?
Because most women reproduce too? You are aware that your DNA isn't just your father's genes?

That's like asking why there are still manlets if women prefer tall men, the answer is because womanlets have ZERO trouble reproducing.

My dad is tall my mom is short, I'm short.

>>36437968

The sexual revolution made it so Chad could bang as many women as possible without worrying about commitment or getting them pregnant. And then non-Chad males are socially shamed into committing to sluts and being the beta male provider good guy types.

Women think internally that when they have sex with Chad, their hypergamy is coming to fruition and that they are giving their future offspring a chance to be better. All women want to upgrade their genes. But this is just mental smoke and mirrors, as Chad is under absolutely no requirement to stay with her and he uses contraception regularly.

>20% of men do 80% of the reproducing
>60% of married couples have natural-born children
this makes no sense

https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-than-60-of-u-s-kids-live-with-two-biological-parents/

Because it's not real. Something like 80% of men have children at some point in their lives

>>36437968
>>36438446
almost like this is some bullshit meme failures tell themselves to cope with their own personal failing
it's much easier to think they weren't in a special rare class of men than think it's common as fuck and they are the rare case of failures out there.

>>36438481
Not so long ago for every 17 females that reproduced, only 1 man did. Civilization and marriage probably made it so close to 90% of men could reproduce (probably less because of wars and such), but it's going in the other direction now. Sexual revolution and all.

Wouldn't surprise me if like 80% of women reproduced while 40 or 50% of men did. Reminder that one guy can have 50 baby mommas.

>>36438499
It is becoming common though, dozens of studies point in the same direction. Young men are more interested in video games than sex. This is what women wanted, to keep men with low sexual market away from them entirely, to not have to deal with anyone who's not literally Chad Thundercock.

>>36438557
>Reminder that one guy can have 50 baby mommas
Thanks to science a healthy male could theoretically impregnated every single fertile woman on the entire planet with a days worth of sperm donations. This is how worthless and expendable males are, except for slave labor.

>>36438446
You guys don't understand the pareto law.

It is not 20% of males who do 80% of the reproduction.

It is 80% male ls who reproduce and 20% who doesn't (aka robots). There was a 3 studies done by 3 different american universities and they arrived around the same number : 19% of US males don't reproduce and 11% females don't too.

>>36438613
It really fires my synapses desu

>>36438620
The pareto law is 20% of men own 80% of wealth. Or whatever it's application might be. You're the one who doesn't understand it. You can just google it and see that you're literally saying the pareto law is not what it is.

Not saying it's true in this case, though.

>>36437968
Upbringing still has a lot to do with it and there are a fuckload of single mothers.

>>36437968
>Shouldn't most men have been born with Chad genes with the first years of the sexual revolution if 4 in 5 kids were fathered by the top genetic 20% of the previous generation?

The sexual revolution is gradual, and still in progress.
Promiscuity and having children out of wedlock was still shameful until a few decades ago.

Even if the father is Chad, he might have impregnated an ugly woman, or a short one.

A person with potential Chad genetics can grow up to be a beta fag if he's raised badly.