Bother China and India have a net negative immigration rate, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate,so no problem there either
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Too Many Men: What happens when women are outnumbered on a continental scale (WaPo)
- Thread starter Kirblar
- Start date
Firstly I did acknowledge that Japan didn't have a 1 child policy.
Secondly. Regardless of the first point, Japan also faces issues when it comes to sexism and cultural issues that favour sons over daughters. I explain this in my post and why this is in common with other nations and contributing factors to the gender disparity.
Japan/China/India all share socioeconomic reasons that have contributed to this. I'm not sure how you don't see the connection between Japan, China and India on this.
Have you been? It's incredibly dense. They're fine for their current population. They're actually going to have more trouble due to low population that's predicted, for tons of reasons.
Is there any current country or culture that values female children over male ones?
If your talking about those specific countries then sure but I was talking globally.
For a peek into India's potential future, I present the following movie:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrubhoomi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrubhoomi
This article again. Always about raw numbers. Never mentions how absurdly picky a large chunk of Chinese men are on what constitutes a suitable partner. Don't earn more than the man, don't be more successful, don't be over thirty, plus you have to satisfy your family's irrational demands, and the potential partner/their family's expectations. Cultural pressure isn't easy to ignore for everyone.
Never a mention at how a generation of only child girls were raised to be more independent with all of the resources and opportunities invested that are traditionally afforded to male children.
Just the same regurgitated article that happens every single year. Go interview professionally successfulattractive women in their mid thirties that struggle to find a suitable partner even though there's a shortage.
The numbers don't help. But the fact that men in their twenties are competing with men up through their forties or even fifties for the same ' viable marriage pool' is not improving matters.
Never a mention at how a generation of only child girls were raised to be more independent with all of the resources and opportunities invested that are traditionally afforded to male children.
Just the same regurgitated article that happens every single year. Go interview professionally successfulattractive women in their mid thirties that struggle to find a suitable partner even though there's a shortage.
The numbers don't help. But the fact that men in their twenties are competing with men up through their forties or even fifties for the same ' viable marriage pool' is not improving matters.
Last edited:
It's a general statement that everyone. It is unfair and disingenuous to bring up the misogyny and male-favoritism of country X, as a means to compare it to the horrific state controlled governance of country Y. Causation does not equal correlation. You took a similarity, and decided it was appropriate to drive home a parallel.
Misogyny is a problem everywhere. Male son favoritism is a problem in every heavy emerging economy on the level of India. I frankly don't see the basis for comparison when you consider the catastrophic policies and the following ramifications of what OPs article talks about. I just don't get it why you thought it was a good idea to make that parallel.
China and Indias demographic problems are so different from Japan. It is not a fair comparison.
This is actually a common problem everywhere, not just India and China.
https://hbr.org/2017/05/the-ambition-marriage-trade-off-too-many-single-women-face
Yep, men are socialized towards insecurity across human society.
Both genders have their preferences as well.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12372
It's a tricky thing in general.
Japanese female's glass ceiling is very low, lower than other developed countries and probably lower than rest of the Asian countries.
But the issue of Japanese population implosion is caused by a discrimination of youth. The tradition of chronic low salary for young people and other policies that discourage raising children are the problems.
I'm not sure what your statement means. Yes, people have preferences. In fact that shows preferences changing based on societal factors. What's a ' tricky thing in general '. Those are super generic statements.
Of course, male socialization has not changed at the same rate and with the same sort of enlightenment esque profundity alongside female socialization/role changes.
Big difference in choosing to be single and feeling like you have no choice though. Most people don't even know how to be alone with themselves either. I could only assume this will have all sorts of mental health ramifications on top of all the other issues.
Are you sure that they marry up because of a rationally determined plan of action? And not, perhaps, because men act more confidently and boldly when they feel they have an advantage, when they believe themselves to be successful?
It's important to not discount the behavioral dynamics of human relationships. Humans are simply not going out as a rule (with very few exceptions) and selecting their partners by spreadsheet.
It's tricky because men aren't the only part of this equation. In the study I linked, the findings are the more educated the woman, more her preferences for marrying up. Less educated women don't track similarly. Why aren't the less educated women tracking the same as the more educated women?
The marrying up tendency was reversed in less educated women, but persisted in women of higher education.
Sucessful, attractive, in her 30's? Damn straight she's factoring in the guys REAL status. She's not going to marry a confident, good looking deadbeat.
And why isn't male insecurity/socialization still a likely issue? How many men have trained themselves mentally to fill the role of supportive partner that sacrifices their career, cooks, cleans, educates the children? It happens but is still rare, mostly looked down upon, and not encouraged. However in a combined labor market where women, because they are actually equally as capable as men intellectually, many men will have to be displaced from filling ' provider' roles across society.
However when you are constantly bombarded with only examples of the provider/leader role as a path to be considered successful and a 'man' you have a socialization issue.
Mating relationships are very seldom just a 'oh he makes 17,000 more per year than me, ok I'm into this guy' now. That's absurd, especially when the woman is already successful. It has far more to do with the way the more successful men present themselves and interact. Confidence is attraction, security and stability are attractive.
Wait there's nothing between a deadbeat and more successful than? Why such extremes? You know there's a middle ground, right? Is that how you think? Someone that isn't making more than their wife is a deadbeat? You seem to have bought into some toxic socialization paradigms there!
And what are security and stability? You're all over the place with your points. The older you get (how old are you BTW?) the more consideration you put in to the whole package and know what red flags to avoid.
But why do higher educated women prefer marrying up compared to their less educated peers? That's what the study found. There was a reversal of this tendency in women of lower educational attainment. So there is some leveling off, but it's not happening with women of higher education.
If you're thesis is to be proven there would not be any leveling. There has been, but in lower educational attainment couplings.
I can't think of one, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume at least currently, that their is less importance on the gender of a child in Western countries than Eastern.
Going by your argument the only two countries comparable are India and China. If that's the case, then that's a legit argument. However the bolded last part makes me question if you are putting the sole causation of this as policy. My points about the cultural influences on this were never claimed as the sole reason. These cultural influences are shared by more than just one country, the reason I choose Japan is because they also place a similar importance on the gender of children, for many of the same reasons India and China do.
Not really. Accuse me of splitting hairs, but you can't compare Western nations and Eastern Nations and then claim women experience about the same levels of Misogyny. If you want I can the first the sex related crime rates in India and compare it with any Western nation and I'm pretty confident India will be heard.
I never discounted the one child/two child policy, I only suggested that the same cultural issues that have put more importance on male babies than female are also exhibited in Japan and that Japans solution to this could become a standard followed by the others.
Maybe I didn't make that clear.
So many factors. Where are they meeting partners? People tend to stay within their social circles, meet people through college, if they're at high educational attainment they are likely around men that are equally successful. Just because something is a ' statistical occurrence' does not make it an ' active preference'
Higher education is still skewing towards the institutionally wealthy, families that tend to be traditional and take more active control in their children's lives. It's not an open paper, but did they adjust for age?
Women tend to prefer older partners, is that still considered ' higher status ' because they're more progressed in their careers?
Am I all over the place? Security and stability are not just determined by ' educational attainment'(how much money you invested or could afford to pay for a degree, or your family could) and raw income. Working moderately over time with good decision making can lead to security and stability as well. Don't fall into the cult of wealth and power.
How is my age relevant at all? Are you saying all those 40 and 50 year old men constantly pursuing women in their twenties are putting consideration into the whole package? What an absurd premise that being older somehow makes one more fiscally responsible and approach marriage as a purely transactional relationship. Those are value system ideas, not age related ideas.
Yes, and they'll more likley be emotionally mature with more life experiance.
The difference between "I want to be a, hope to be a" and "I am a"
We're still talking about this hypothetical sucessfull, attractive woman in her 30's right? You seem to be generalizing about women your age.
? No? I was referring to the significant number of Chinese women in that age range that are passed over in favor of women in their 20's due to ' leftover women' cultural pressure and the insecurity of men. It's not a hypothetical...an I'm not sure why you would imply it is? Do you simply not believe women in their 30's are attractive anymore?
Because you seem to have a naive view of relationships. The fact you avoided answering tells me what I suspected.
It's not a hypothetical. The fact you refer to it as such implies you simply aren't acknowledging a shared reality. Good luck.
Logical fallacy: that I don't want to reveal my exact age on a public forum means I am trying to avoid some ' gotcha moment' from you that will definitely win you an argument I don't care at all about?
Even though, rationally, we know that my age would have no bearing on whether my written English words change in meaning. You want to believe I am very young, naive, and unaware of the real world young lad!!!
You are quite incorrect, and probably know yourself to be as well. One should not make assumptions about age. Have you considered that you are cynical and look at relationships through a transactional lens that forces you to only interact with likewise cynically transactional humans?
It's very easy for a male human to 'marry up '. Just stop following and caring about the paradigms of the male social hierarchy. That's really all there is to it.
Uhh, again, how is that relevant? This was a discussion about trends in a society involving single men and women. I brought up a variety of points regarding some of the issues beyond 'raw population data ' that also should have been brought up.
Somehow you believe it is materially relevant to mention that you're happily married to a woman in her thirties? In what world does that matter at all? How does that magically dissipate all of the single women that do exist? Why could you possibly believe that means anything at all?
I do agree but we do actually have historical precedent to go off here, even if it's being framed in the thread rather callously and viewed through people's perceptions of western men who are single.
South Sudan is an interesting example of this. The economist, only last month, had a fantastic report on how polygamy has a correlation with war and violence due to the large numbers of poor men it leaves without families. It's even exploited by groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria.
It was shown that high prideprice is a critical factor in men getting involved in organised group violence for political purposes.
It shouldn't be underestimated as a topic but it also shouldn't be used to beat single men over the head with. It's a lot more complex than that.
Good article on some of the complex consequences of historically and culturally devaluing women and girls.
I used to be shocked that nobody thought the combination of a one child policy and a cultural/historical preference for male babies was an unsustainable situation, but I realized they probably just didn't care because it was thought to only be a problem for future generations.
Even countries with strong cultural preferences for male children and no policy limiting the number of children are now dealing with the results of those preferences generations later, in how women and girls are treated and valued.
I used to be shocked that nobody thought the combination of a one child policy and a cultural/historical preference for male babies was an unsustainable situation, but I realized they probably just didn't care because it was thought to only be a problem for future generations.
Even countries with strong cultural preferences for male children and no policy limiting the number of children are now dealing with the results of those preferences generations later, in how women and girls are treated and valued.
How? Japan is a first world country that has dominated the economic landscape of Asia for many decades. China is a country that had a tyrant who instigated a genocidal policy that killed millions of girls. You're being vague when you keep saying "many cultural influences" without going into specifics. You want to compare raindrops when there is a massive ocean of differences between how those countries reached their demographic problems.
I said that misogyny is a problem everywhere and that's a vague statement to use as a comparison stick. I never said misogyny was equal everywhere. The entire point is that it's dumb to use an article as a backdrop of severe and catastrophic gender differences as an anchor to make parallels to other country's without factoring all the different variables and differences.
Chinas problem is due to decades of harmful policy, Indias problem is due to lack of infrastructure and education. This pattern of favoring boys is evident anywhere in the world in emerging economies.
Japan is not comparable. It's an exported global leader that has fallen on hard economic times, insane socio-economic work processes, which makes the population less likely to forego having kids. Japans demographic lifespan are also record high. Japan has been on the top of the food chain for as long as they've been known as a "post-WW2 miracle". I just don't see how their situation is anything like Chinas or India. Yes, they share similarities. Everyone does. But I think you're overstating them in contrast to the real problems as outed in the OP.
I just don't get it.
The proper way to talk about it is to acknowledge facts. Due to billions of years of selective pressures, young men are more likely to engage in risky behavior and commit crime than any other group. A surplus of angry young men poses particular societal problems.
Are you sure? I'm actually pretty sure it's exactly the opposite—it's very, very slightly more likely that you'll give birth to a girl than a boy.
They did not consider it. The objective was to slow down population growth. However, if you had money you could apply a licence to have more children so presumably it was a policy to curb the population of the poor.
Actually, studies show that an imbalance/surplus of men does not necessarily cause any extra violence. In some cases it could even reduce violence. It's not really clear cut. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...us_of_men_in_society_does_not_cause_more.html
So China can't be compared to India now?
All I've offered is that along with the policy there are cultural reasons as to why. I would argue that the Policies enforced in both India and China put these cultural issues, particularly misogyny on steroids. There is a reason India is known as the Rape Capital of the world. The Policy in a vacuum by itself didn't cause this, but combined with the many cultural issues that are shared by other eastern nations, has led to the gender disparity we see today. You can argue that a dictator forced his will on the people in China's case, but even a dictator would have needed some modicum of support for at least a large chunk of the population. The reasons he received that support haven't gone away. Placing all the blame on one policy doesn't sound logical to me.
I'm not defending it, I'm only suggesting there are cultural reasons as to why and I've provided them several times now.
Sure. I can understand that.
Exactly, but Japan still does this regardless of it's level of development, implying a cultural reason is the fact that boys are favored more than girls. That's partly why Japan is comparable. They both experience varying levels of sexism and xenophobia that would make resolving the falling birth rates/growing female population numbers difficult.
This part is interesting. Poor people give birth to more kids than anyone else (I can find that stats to prove this), if Japan had fallen on hard economic times, we should see the birth rates rising. The Atlantic wrote an article about this where they place the blame partly on economics, but also due to things like Toxic Masculinity and the cultural shame from having children out of wedlock. It's part of the reason I suggested that India and China are potentially nearing a sexual revolution. As social understanding and gender inequality is addressed and economic equality becomes more prevalent I think we will see the Gender disparity resolved.
OP
OP
I am, it was something I read recently, as I had assumed the same as you until I read it. Male births slightly outnumber female ones, but until very recently, males died off in enough numbers at relatively early ages to push the needle back over the other direction. With advances in safety, medicine, etc. less of that is occurring and they're seeing more males overall in younger generations for the first time ever. https://www.npr.org/sections/health...384911/why-are-more-baby-boys-born-than-girls
I'm sure you just misspoke, but there is nothing inherently selfish about not wanting babies.
Yeah, I noticed a lot of that in the article. A lot of those men are ridiculously infantile and are completely lost without their mommy/(hypothetical) wife. They are so deeply entrenched in those rigid gender roles that the thought of cooking for themselves or cleaning themselves doesn't even seem to cross their minds.
It's like... I don't mean to downplay the real problem of individual men being frustrated, lonely and depressed, but when you see most of the men's suffering being expressed as, "I have to learn how to cook" or "there's no one to tell me when to bathe", or "I'm bored and lonely", and then you see the impact this has on women and girls (foreign brides being horribly exploited and abused, young girls being sexually harassed every day trying to go to school), I must say it's hard to not roll my eyes at least a little.
Not really. Japan has birth rate problems and misogyny problems, but they are not manifested in the same way. It's fine to explore
I can't think of any that values female children more, no. I think some of the richer first-world countries are mostly doing OK at valuing female children equally, at least. That should be the goal.
Not seeing a lot of empowerment right now to be honest. :\ Those Indian girls pushing back against harassment are a start, but it feels like a drop in the bucket. I hope it explodes exponentially, but with women being literally outnumbered... it's going to be an uphill battle.
This is a shitty drive-by.
Yup!
Here's a critique of that research referenced by Marcotte. The author agrees no linear relationship exists (its a U-shaped relationship where abnormal sex ratios in either direction affect violent crime rates) but states that "[t]here are numerous rigorous empirical studies showing that areas in India and China with higher sex ratios have significantly higher violent crime rates than areas with more normal sex ratios."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...atios-conflict-methodological-disconnect/amp/
Can you explain what exactly is feminist about China's one child policy and the massive abandonment of female children because of it?
OP
OP
Its not the policy that was, it's super controlling and paternalistic, but as a result of it they were pushing women into the workplace hard and nominally emphasizing a lot of things you'd associate w western feminism. Now faced with w the demographic issues, the messaging is starting to shift towards pushing women the other direction, towards dating/motherhood and such.