Lopsided gender ratio usually favors the outnumbered gender?

Some feminists have commented to the effect that men should comprise only a tiny percentage of the world’s population. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Miller_Gearhart) (This is an extreme view, not mainstream feminism.)
But doing so will actually give men a significant advantage. In a modern Western society with a lopsided gender ratio, the scarcer gender should be the *advantaged * one, at least as far as marriage and relationships are concerned - and possibly in other aspects of life as well. In a society of few men and many women, the men would be the ones with all the picking-and-choosing advantage in dating. However, in democracy, the outnumbered gender would be out-voted, too.
(I say ‘modern Western society’ because some societies, such as Taliban-governed Afghanistan, would be bad for women no matter what the gender ratio was.)
So, in modern Western society, if one side wanted to give their gender an advantage, shouldn’t they try to *reduce *their own gender’s numbers and become a minority?

True. In fact, is there any other identifiable feminist besides Gearhart and the radical blogger known as The Femitheist who actually endorses this drastically sexist position?

Didn’t you just answer your own question? It depends on what kind of advantage you’re seeking.

Yes, if you want to have more choice of potential partners of the opposite gender, you should seek out situations where there’s a smaller proportion of your own gender.

But if you want to be protected in a democratic society from discrimination and attack on account of your gender, you’re better off having as many voters in your gender cohort as possible.

In any case, having their gender in the minority doesn’t seem to be such a great deal for women in India and China. Yes, neither of those is a developed country, but both are modern in many ways, and India has a democratic form of government. Their situations don’t inspire confidence that reducing the proportion of women in a society is actually advantageous for women.

Kimstu mentioned India and China. Taking India as an example the ratio seems to be about 110 boys to 100 girls born nationwide, 115:100 in the state of Haryana (source). It seems that scarcity has not led to women getting the upper hand in the world’s greatest democracy.

In the hypothetical case of a human population of 90 % males and 10 % females I suspect unenlightened males would just easily oppress women and bitterly fight other males over them, and enlightened males would consider women to be entitled to equal dignity and consideration but also a very critical resource that could regrettably not be wasted to haphazard self-allocation. Both groups would agree on women not being allowed self-determination.

Likely those of the majority wielding power would work to horde the resource for their personal use.

Even assuming that this were true (and I see other posters have already pointed out why it probably isn’t), there is no guarantee that you personally will survive the Great Man Purge you work for. The French Revolution was great for Robespierre right up to the moment when Le People decided to kill him too.

It didn’t work out so good for David Keith.

Anecdotally, the lopsided gender ratio has actually empowered women in China in some ways, IIRC.

I think there are two different questions here:

Which gender has the most aggregate power?

For which gender does each individual have disproportionately more personal power?

I don’t think the two questions necessarily have the same answer, particularly as the numbers get very skewed.

I don’t know enough about China to say, but India is not a ‘modern country’ in any sense that matters here. Sure, it has modern areas. I would imagine some neighborhoods of Kabul are ‘modern’ too. The big area you would expect women to benefit from a male biased sex ratio is in the dating / mating marketplace. India is an extremely sexually conservative society, where women don’t have the same kind of personal freedom in their sexual behavior that they do in genuinely modern countries, so none of this would even apply.

In a modern society with a relatively free sexual marketplace I would expect women to benefit from a male biased gender ratio. Men would certainly benefit from a female biased ratio, which are historically more common (e.g. Paraguay after the War of the Triple Alliance was supposedly 80% female).

My point is that if some radical feminists think that reducing the male population will put men at a disadvantage…it probably won’t.

Why wouldn’t it apply? Sexually conservative societies have dating/mating marketplaces too, you know. It’s just that in a sexually conservative society, dating/mating activities are about achieving matrimonial pairings rather than short-term relationships.

But gender imbalance in such situations still means that members of the underrepresented gender have more potential partners to choose from.

Again, it’s giving bridal-age Chinese women (and their families) more clout in the dating/mating marketplace. But I don’t know of any evidence that it’s increasing the security or rights of women in China in general. Perhaps the reverse, given the increases in female trafficking, forced marriage, abduction of girls, and so forth.

Not as far as mate selection is concerned, at least. But if men were a small demographic minority, it would certainly reduce their political and social power overall, and I don’t see why that wouldn’t be considered disadvantageous for them.

Fortunately, I don’t think it’s in any way a realistic scenario.

Again, most women in rural India aren’t ‘choosing’ their partners in any meaningful sense, their sexual behavior is constrained by social mores. This is less so than in the past, fortunately, but it’s still largely the case. The fact that women are not particularly well off in India doesn’t tell us how they would fare in a genuinely modern society with a male biased sex ratio.

There have been plenty of societies with female biased sex ratios in the past (Paraguay after the big war, the Soviet Union after 1945, etc.), and men were still in charge, so I don’t think male political and social power would be in all that much danger. Testosterone seems to be linked to social dominance, so I would guess men would still have some degree of political power disproportionate to their numbers.

I don’t think that would apply at all to the OP’s hypothetical of men being reduced to a tiny percentage of the world population.

(The percentage named by the one or two radfems who are the only people AFAIK on record as supporting such a loony proposition is 10%, which is arguably not “tiny” but still small enough to take a significant bite out of even “disproportionate” political power.)

In theory it would give men power. However if the country and culture became so radicalized that the idea of eliminating 80% of the men ever took hold, it is safe to say that the remaining women would use their voting power to force the men to act in ways that are beneficial to the women. Laws would be passed forcing men to behave in ways that are beneficial to women.

So in a free, fair social system yes the men would hold power in the mating and dating game if they were outnumbered. But in a society that was so totalitarian and disrespectful of human rights I’m sure laws would be passed to neuter whatever power men actually hold in that situation. Men would probably be kept as breeding chattel, to be locked out of the meaningful positions of social and political power, and then forced to donate sperm when demanded w/o the men having any say in the issue. So that doesn’t sound too advantageous.

But they still wouldn’t necessarily acquire power in other spheres. In fact they would probably lose power, even in a free and fair society.

In particular, if men continued to be disproportionately prominent among perpetrators of crime, that would reduce the proportion of men in law-abiding society still further, and would contribute to prejudice and social ostracism of men.

Yes but if you assume that a large motivator for men committing crimes is to try to obtain status and resources that they can use to attract women, and you assume that due to the surplus of women that women freely mate with men with few/no status and resources that should remove a good chunk of male motivation to act like criminals.

I have no idea if that is how things would play out in the real world though.