How does one successfully raise a male child in a feminist society?

Wouldn't it still be 50/50?

>>38125364
It'd still be 50% male and 50% female.

Chad's do very well in this feminist hell hole of a society.

Everyone else is fucked.

So make sure you find Aryan sperm for your child and he should be fine.

File: firmhandshakeman.jpg (40KB, 612x408px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 612x408px

>>38125364
The secret is in the firm handshake, anon.

There is actually a 51/49 % chance either way that favours boys I believe. This is because men tend to die more than women so its natures balancing mechanism.

>>38125364
OP quit being a nigger, and tell us: >>38125408, >>38125458 if we got it right.

>>38125408

>still be 50/50
>Implying the male to female birth ratio is 1:1

Kek, read a book my man. Not everything they teach you in middle school is true.

>>38125364
It's actually one man to every four women, which agrees with the 80/20 rule of life.

File: 1498144669388-pol.jpg (59KB, 674x648px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 674x648px

>>38125364
This would actually be good for robots as there would be more women and less chads and men, meaning alot less competition. Sure our men are now more shit as a result of this change, and our country as well, but hey at least future younger robots will have a higher chance of getting that PUSCI.

This is incredibly cruel even for 4chan but I'll just say it.
Life is not fair and was never meant to be equal. Feminists are very red pilled actually, about Chad, about the relations between men and women. Men are disposable and they give women all the power women possess. Women in western society take advantage of numerous systems operating simultaneously that give them life on tutorial mode with cheats enabled (I'm not a /v/ermin but I've seen that phrase used before and I like it).
If you believe the lie of equality, you deserve the misery that comes your way. Society sees you as a man as a disposable utility that's expected to be at the top of your game. You are expected to be a 10/10 charismatic dudebro while giving women everything they want, being a "real man" and upholding society. Men have it harder than women.
The gene pool is quite shitty and women are subconsciously trying to correct it but only fucking the top guys. It's in their biology and they are right to do so. The women only fucking Chad, if they had kids with Chad, would be saving future generations from what /r9k/ and other disaffected males have to experience right now.
The redditors that come here and talk about how easy it is to be a man and how hard women have it are just useful retards, and that's all they ever will be.

>>38125567
>>38125591
Okay who gives a shit? The answer was meant to be that the birth ratios wouldn't change.

>>38125622
Less men? Need more refugees to replace them then :^)

>>38125364
That question is fucking bogus.
What if they have a second child but both of them are boys.
Are they forced to throw him down the fuckin garbage shoot?
Who is the half assed lazy bait master coming up with this shit?

>>38125635
this is complete nonsense

Giving women free reign like this won't get rid of robots, it will just produce a society where the standards for men get higher with each generation. It will eventually create a culture where only the top 10% of men have a harem, producing huge amounts of bastards raised by single mothers.

You can't "correct" the gene pool, for a successful society even the ugly, less alpha men need to produce to ensure a steady supply of worker bees.

>>38125364
Reverse psychology.
Tell him it's okay to be gay, republicans are the devil and be as incompetent as possible. Basically become a single mother.

>>38125364
The answer is 2:1 for 50%, minor deviations from 50% do not change it significantly.
>>38125408
>>38125507
>>38125507
>>38125591

> fems = 0
> for x in range(20): fems += x*(1.0/(2**x))
> fems = 1.999959945678711

This is a numerical approach. You get closer to 2 the more steps you put in range(n)

>>38125897
Literally the worst attempt at math I have ever seen. Your retarded formula is saying that the chance of having exactly one girl is 1/2, which is obviously not correct.

The correct answer is that the final ratio is 1:1. Every kid ever born will still have a 50 % chance of being male, the premies in OP does not change this.

>>38126161
You are fucking stupid. Here's the formula broken down for your retarded child mind.

Always 1 boy, obviously

1/2 chance of boy right off = 0 girls
1/4 chance of girl-boy = 1 girls
1/8 chance of girl-girl-boy = 2 girls
1/16 chance of girl-girl-girl-boy = 3 girls

You multiply left by right and sum the results to get the average. This will add up to the total odds.

If you don't believe me, work it out to 6 and you get 1.78 girls per boy. 10 gets you 1.97.

File: 1476616247809.jpg (48KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 480x480px

>>38126161
Of course I make a spelling mistake when I try to be edgy and smug over a math problem.

>>38126250

This table you now made is correct. The formula in your previous post does not match the table.

>>38126382
Oh, you're right. It should be
> for x in range(20): fems += x*(1.0/(2**(x+1)))
because of the first 50% being 0, rather than 1/1 being 0

That does lead to 1:1. Interesting. Now that I think about it more, it makes sense because while you're eliminating long boy-chains, you also eliminate all chains where you have several girls after one son.

>>38125715

>Giving women free reign like this won't get rid of robots, it will just produce a society where the standards for men get higher with each generation
>You can't "correct" the gene pool, for a successful society even the ugly, less alpha men need to produce to ensure a steady supply of worker bees.

It is not complete non-sense, this is how biology works. Men are disposable and women want the top men, because women want the best possible genes for their offspring. This will correct the gene pool eventually.
The legions of disposable beta men have always been dealt with one way or the other, and a society that is technologically based with a lower population could handle all the women and Chads existing with a very tiny amount of worker slaves to support them.

>>38125635
im laughing so hard holy shit, i love you.

>>38126611
There will always be Alphas and Betas.
By competing for breeding rights, you ensure that the next generation will be superior to the current, but that generation will still have Alphas and Betas.
They will just be better Alphas and Betas.
The Alpha of today may well be the beta of tomorrow, and the Beta of today could well have been the Alpha of yesterday.

War never changes.

>>38125364
This is a really outdated question. Thanks to the empowerment of women, you can now just abort the boys.

>>38126546
You don't have to do this numerically. S is for Sum because Sigma is non-ascii. (All sums are from n = 0.)
Geometric series: S a^n = 1/(1-a)
Differentiate the series w.r.t a: S na^(n-1) = 1/(1-a)^2
Multiply by a^2: S na^(n+1) = a^2/(1-a)^2
Plug in a = 1/2: S n/(2^(n+1)) = (1/4)/(1/4) = 1
(The manipulation is valid because the series converges absolutely.)

For other values of a you get other proportions:
a = 0.1: 0.0123457
a = 0.2: 0.0625
a = 0.3: 0.183673
a = 0.4: 0.444444
a = 0.5: 1
a = 0.6: 2.25
a = 0.7: 5.44444
a = 0.8: 16
a = 0.9: 81

>>38126546
>>38126382
>>38126161

NOT 1:1

It would be 1:1 if every family would have children untill they reach a boy (in which case would have been 1:1) In other case, you have to account for pure girl families too, which will make it closer to 2:1

>This ends up working
>The ratio is now something insane like 5 women to every 1 man
>"OH BOY! NOW THE GENDER ROLES ARE REVERSED, AND WOMEN WILL BE LINING UP TO FUCK ME AND PAY FOR EVERYTHING!"
>All that happens is women get even pickier
>Polygamy law gets passed
>Occasional Chad gets a literal fucking harem of minimum 5 girls
>You lose

But hey, at least when this works for long enough, future generations will be 95% Chad and being male will actually be acceptable again.
>Assuming women don't find a way to ruin that too with artificial births and shit

>>38125364
by breaking the law and stop being such a massive pussy about everything

>>38126250
its 2 girls for every man about because if there is a girl born there is a 1/2 chance for another girl but with a boy it just stops

>>38127883

Is this bait? It literally does not matter if you account for this, every kid will still have a 50 % probability of being male. This is all the information you need to solve the problem if you are not a retard. When the parents decide to stop making babies does not matter.

If you write a script to simulate this shit where people randomly decide to stop having children even though they only have girls, you will find that you just made a retarded post.

Or look at it this way. If we do not account for people stopping at a girl we get a 1:1 distribution, that we agree on. Let's say we have a family with a bunch of girls. They will either stop now, or continue until they get a boy. How does the distribution of kids look like for the 'continue' branch look? 1:1, as we already concluded, since it is the same case we already agreed on. So we have a 1:1 distribution of kids and then we remove some 'continue branches', which are also 1:1. Which means we are still left with a 1:1 distribution.