Feeling a little prickly and condescending today are you, or are you always like that? I'm pretty sure I understand better than you do, and you missed my point entirely. You first suggested it would be better if we were all women, then allowed for 1 man in every 100 people for purely reproductive purposes. My point was that if that were a better survival strategy than the 50-50 ratio we actually see, evolution would have produced it. It hasn't, so it must be a losing strategy in the long term.
Obviously it's true that 1 man and 99 women can produce more offspring than 99 men and 1 woman in the same period of time, and it's equally obvious that a society can lose a substantial fraction of its young men and survive--two world wars in the previous century proved that--but lose the women and children and you're going down. That's why men are risk takers, it's built deeply into our evolutionary heritage to protect the women and children at any cost, and men will sacrifice themselves to do that. And so what? You're just belabouring the obvious and condescendingly suggesting I don't understand simple arithmetic when all I really did was introduce another idea into the discussion, to suggest that the 1/99 ratio would be an unsuccessful strategy. You specifically mentioned it as a survival tactic against being out bred by Muslims. You think evolution isn't involved here? Differential reproductive success is the essence of evolution.