Read on Twitter
Comments like these tend to upset some people a lot, particularly women. I wouldn't use Striker's phrasing, but yes, a white man https://twitter.com/Striker05381540/status/1345149130566299649
racemixing is objectively less damaging than a white woman racemixing. The people who get upset about this tend to have a moralistic
outlook, in which racemixing is like a "sin" or moral failing. But strictly biologically speaking, women are the limiting factor of
reproduction. Men are and always have been "expendable". More babies are male than female. A man can have a huge number of children,
and highly successful/dominant men in history in fact did (Genghis Khan being the most prominent example). But women can only have
10 or 20 children, and non-trivial numbers of women used to die in childbirth. So yes, for a population, women are
biologically/reproductively more valuable. Of course, a man turning his back on his group is still harmful, because in
a monogamous society like ours, it makes finding a husband (in the group) harder for women in the group.
But in theory it's still a problem that can be solved. The NSDAP, facing a deficit of men due to war, entertained and implemented
a number of measures intended to enable as many healthy German women to be able to become mothers as possible. They attempted to
diminish the stigma of illegitimacy/single motherhood, implemented state support of such mothers, created the Lebensborn program, etc.
By contrast, there is almost nothing a group can do to make up for the loss of its women. Hence the norms in many societies
related to the protection of women, even at the expense of men (e.g. many more women getting on the Titanic lifeboats than men).
