|
|
| Re: Still more proof of the Woman Shortage (53612) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Still more proof of the Woman Shortage |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Aug 20 01:20:07 2005, in response to Re: Still more proof of the Woman Shortage, posted by Peter Rosa on Fri Aug 19 13:36:17 2005. Some have attributed the drop to decreasing infant mortality rates. Since the 1940s, we've had more male births than female births. And with the drop in infant mortality, the male babies who were more likely to die off are more likely to live now. The extra male births have created a glut of males.Good point. I don't believe, however, that the ratio of male to female births is so different even today that it could be a major factor behind the Woman Shortage. Especially when you consider that males remain far more likely than females to die in adolescence or young adulthood. So the next question of course is, what have decreased crime rates and decreasing suicide rates in the US done to the supply of men available? If they’re not dying and getting shot, then how are they affecting the current ratios. In addition, in previous times, a war was a great way to dump excess men off, but with low casualty rates, the formerly excess men are coming back home alive. In addition, fighting in foreign lands was a great way to find a significant other (read: war brides), but with the recent major conflicts in Muslim lands, the amount of war brides will be pretty low. BTW, how do imprisoned men count towards census results. I don’t think they’re counted towards the results of their home communities. If they are, it would have an interesting effect on the ratios. If the ratio is high, but larger numbers of men are in the prison system, then that’s a supply of men who don’t count while they’re imprisoned. Mind you, in NYC, our prison population has declined. For some women, if your salary isn't above $125K, and your position isn't something that they can brag about, you're quite useless for them. Women have a tendency to avoid marrying downwards, and with increasing numbers of women in college and in professional fields, you're going to find that many of them will refuse to date the busdriver or mechanic. I have to disagree here. What women flock toward are not necessarily highly paid executive types, but studly Alpha Males. Men who are nerdy or unathletic are completely undesirable. Now, it's true that men who have high-paid jobs indeed often are Alphas, but there are exceptions, most notably the stereotypical IT professional. You can be under 30 and make (or inherit) good money, especially in NYC. Or you can have the appearance of it thanks to very liberal credit policies by our financial industry. I agree with you that studly Alpha males are grabbing most of the women, but said Alpha male better have money behind him, or at least several credit cards with $5,000+ limits. Quite simply, thanks to feminism, women now have the ability to outwait men. Previous generations of women have had to compromise and date the not so desirable guy in order to leave her parent’s house, have kids, and well basically support herself. Now, a woman can get her own credit, live alone, get a great paying job in most fields, and if she wants kids, an adoption agency or sperm bank is available to her. She’s no longer a spinster if she doesn’t marry or a disappointment if she’s a single mother. Quite simply, she doesn’t need the other guys, and if she can’t get the alpha man, well, she can still survive. Women can afford to choose men on the same basis that men have been choosing women for years, choosing based on superficial looks. I plan on getting a degree in Political Science and Urban Studies and working for the government and I’m not blowing my credit away for any woman. The only way I’m getting a g/f is if I move to Canada. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|