A 3 to 1 female:male birth ratio?

[Le Jacquelope]

Would men still have to compete as hard for dates if this came about?

Would men be considered less expendable?

I'm wondering, because the way men are being treated nowadays I sure am starting to sincerely wish the birth ratio was more like that...

Heck, one can imagine how many fights and even wars are or were caused by men fighting over women.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm not sure that would be a good idea.

A significant portion of my gender are already arrogant assholes. That ratio would probably increase the number dramatically.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I'm not sure that would be a good idea.

A significant portion of my gender are already arrogant assholes. That ratio would probably increase the number dramatically.

What about the rest of us? And the idea that men's faults are worse than women's is pure sexist propaganda.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

It is odd, when you think about it, that the ratio is basically 1:1. The survival of the species would be better if it were more women to fewer men, wouldn't it be?

No, because then for every male taken out of the equation (killed or didn't survive), three females would be genetically "wasted", so this would be a very inefficient way of guaranteeing species viability. The most efficient way is a 1:1 ratio with more offspring per female. But given the difficulty of raising a human child, this isn't feasible.

Thanks, Doc. You're welcome, Doc.

 

[sr71plt]

Is it really close to 1:1? When I was serving abroad, the official statistics in every country I was working in had the number of females significantly higher than males. (Lots of little wars here and there, though, which may have influenced those ratios.) Are there reliable statistics showing near equality in ratio?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Would men still have to compete as hard for dates if this came about?

Would men be considered less expendable?

I'm wondering, because the way men are being treated nowadays I sure am starting to sincerely wish the birth ratio was more like that...

Heck, one can imagine how many fights and even wars are or were caused by men fighting over women.

Fighting over young women. Fighting over the few women that, for some reason, meet the Male Seal Of Approval.

There are so many perfectly fabulous women out there, living alone with little hope of having a partner other than their cats. Their crime? Being the same age as you are. Middle-aged men are, for the most part, assholes, living in a dreamland where all the women are nubile and adoring-- and so very inexplicably unavailable.

Would you like a loving partner? Try the over forty crowd.

 

[Maeve_redux]

Fighting over young women. Fighting over the few women that, for some reason, meet the Male Seal Of Approval.

There are so many perfectly fabulous women out there, living alone with little hope of having a partner other than their cats. Their crime? Being the same age as you are. Middle-aged men are, for the most part, assholes, living in a dreamland where all the women are nubile and adoring-- and so very inexplicably unavailable.

Would you like a loving partner? Try the over forty crowd.

Not always the over 40, but anywhere past the just-over-legal and still-partying hot as hell bitches.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It is odd, when you think about it, that the ratio is basically 1:1. The survival of the species would be better if it were more women to fewer men, wouldn't it be?

We're an endangered species?

No, it's pretty obvious that a 1:1 ratio works just fine.

 

[rgraham666]

Would you like a loving partner? Try the over forty crowd.

I'm afraid women have their own set of unreasonable expectations. Usually around money. Very few women will date a man lower on the socio-economic scale than them. They prefer above.

My observations since I restarted dating.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm afraid women have their own set of unreasonable expectations. Usually around money. Very few women will date a man lower on the socio-economic scale than them. They prefer above.

My observations since I restarted dating.

Yes, that's often true. The women I know, who live alone, have been self-sufficient for all of those years. They have had to pay their own way, period. They are used to tight budgeting-- the more so since so many women still make less than their male coworkers do.

Older hetero women tend to not be looking for a fling, or a one night stand. Fucking is an intimacy they are not used to, and it's not that easy to spread their legs for a fuck buddy -- her main desire is for a long-term companion. So, most of these woman are judging you via a longer time-frame than one evening. If she begins to invest an emotional commitment in a man who can't support himself-- when she can barely support her own self-- that's a scary proposition. Like it or not, the first thought is going to be; "If he can't share finances, he's going to try to sponge off me."

 

[rgraham666]

I know.

I won't, but it's hard to convince a woman of that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I know.

I won't, but it's hard to convince a woman of that.

It will take some effort.

Might be an effort worth taking.

 

[rgraham666]

If they give me the chance.

Few women do. Shrugs.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Is it really close to 1:1? When I was serving abroad, the official statistics in every country I was working in had the number of females significantly higher than males. (Lots of little wars here and there, though, which may have influenced those ratios.) Are there reliable statistics showing near equality in ratio?

As I recall, the birth rate is something like 1.05:1, Males:Females, to allow for the slightly greater mortality of male infants, and by adolescence the cohort is pretty near 1:1. Males are naturally less healthy than females though, so by the time they're in their 50's or 60's, women outnumber men significantly.

 

[Stella_Omega]

As I recall, the birth rate is something like 1.05:1, Males:Females, to allow for the slightly greater mortality of male infants, and by adolescence the cohort is pretty near 1:1. Males are naturally less healthy than females though, so by the time they're in their 50's or 60's, women outnumber men significantly.

And are available.

 

[elsol]

Wen Spencer wrote a book 'A Brother's Price' where the ratio was something like 10 to 1.

Pretty much the males where the females of this world... and the females were the males.

It made for some interesting reading... whereas males were less expendable but actually treated like they were more expendable (i.e. males are sold.)

 

[freshface]

As I recall, the birth rate is something like 1.05:1, Males:Females, to allow for the slightly greater mortality of male infants, and by adolescence the cohort is pretty near 1:1. Males are naturally less healthy than females though, so by the time they're in their 50's or 60's, women outnumber men significantly.

According to the CIA Factbook, at birth it is about 107 males to 100 females. In the total population, it's about 101 males to 100 females. These numbers are skewed in some Asian societies by gender selection abortions and infanticide. In China, it's more like 122 males born for every 100 females. There are already reports there of young women being kidnapped and forced into marriages because there aren't enough to go around and of riots over the lack of spouses.

For a look at society when there are lots more females than males, look at Europe right after World War I. So many young men died in that war that there was a whole generation of unmarried women.

Either way, a big difference in the ratio appears to be bad for society.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I'm afraid women have their own set of unreasonable expectations. Usually around money. Very few women will date a man lower on the socio-economic scale than them. They prefer above.

My observations since I restarted dating.

Exacatively. That would change if there were suddenly far more women than men. Look at how women's height requirements nosedived in Europe shorty after WW-II depleted the male populace...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Either way, a big difference in the ratio appears to be bad for society.

After World War I, women didn't sack an entire city with amazon troops sitting in a trojan horse over some guy.

And with that whole generation of unmarried women... I thought men were basically dogs? (You mean the propaganda is off the mark???)

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

Curiously, I have had two life experiences which kind of mirror this hypothetical.

The first was a State University college which first my friend attended and then later I attended. The college had for it's first 100 years or so been a "teacher's college" in the state system with a typical 2-1 ratio of women to men.

By the 60's and 70's the college had been transformed into a liberal arts curriculum, although with a strong education department. The ratio's had been reduced to something like 55/45 (f/m) but to do so, they had actually lowered entrance requirements for males... I assume after years of "equal opportunity" access the requirements have now been leveled.

What resulted, however, was that there was social tradition at the college which continued to function as if the ratio's were 2-1 and males were in great "demand", even tho the numbers were roughly equal. It was a curious phenomenon.... which myself and my male friends found to be much to our liking.

On a one-to-one level, of course, relationships were the same. But on a more casual basis, it was quite different. During the years prior to my being involved in a serious (marriage is pretty serious) relationship, it was part of "our" tradition to always have dates on Friday and Saturday (fraternity or private parties being the typical venue) but not to have arranged for them any earlier than 6:00 pm of the day in question.

Now this was silly, immature, macho male college crap, but, on the other hand, I recall very few evenings that I did not have a date.....

Travel ahead some 40 years (we can always go back in Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine) and I found myself first in a mid sized city in the Ukraine and then in a large city in central Russia.

The hard, brutal reality was that in both of those places, there was a huge disparity between the number of women and men in those regions following the slaughter of the 20th century wars and social upheaval. This disparity was real and on a much larger scale but had much the same result as the social scene at my college.

Clearly by the year 2000, birth rates in both places had long normalized the numbers of men to women, at least in the critical 20-30 "coupling" age group. Never the less, there was a perception, at least among women, that there were many more women than men around.

I believe, although I can offer no objective evidence to support it other than my own experience, that the ongoing pre-occupation with being thin and attractive which is rampant among women in this part of the world owes itself to the perceived disparity in numbers owing to this "tradition".

One obvious result of this is not unlike my college experience. Women here are much more aggressive in pursuing men and have a much looser working definition of what constitutes an "eligible" man, "bachelor" not being a major factor.

Women here are also much more content (and likely) to be single mothers, having satisfied the biological imperative for motherhood, if not the drive for life time mating.

I think most westerners assume this whole "Russian Bride" business is due to economic motivation. While it is obviously a factor, I actually believe it has far more to do with the perception among women here, even today, that there are vastly more eligible women about then there are men.

I have numerous discussions with women in these regions who insist there is still a great difference in the number of men and women. What differences that still exist, in reality, have only to do with differences in life expectancies, the same as they do in western cultures. Perhaps on some intellectual level they accept this view, but in their gut, they continue to make decisions based on their mother's and grand-mother's perceptions and advice.

Anyway, that is my experience.

-KC

 

[Le Jacquelope]

One obvious result of this is not unlike my college experience. Women here are much more aggressive in pursuing men and have a much looser working definition of what constitutes an "eligible" man, "bachelor" not being a major factor.

See, that's the thing... the way I see it, these women adopted a more realistic view of what a desirable man is.

Normally, guys are held to a divine standard of what an ideal mate is - in fact, we're nothing more than a cover for her insecurities. (We've gotta be older, taller, richer, smarter, stronger, etc.) She wants a taller/stronger guy because he can protect her. Richer, because he can provide for her. Older, because he's like her mythical dad. Etc etc.

All that changes when there are tons more women than men...

 

[sr71plt]

As I recall, the birth rate is something like 1.05:1, Males:Females, to allow for the slightly greater mortality of male infants, and by adolescence the cohort is pretty near 1:1. Males are naturally less healthy than females though, so by the time they're in their 50's or 60's, women outnumber men significantly.

I prefer research to "as I recall." But research bears your ratio out, at least for the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the ratio in the 2000 census was 96.3 males to 100 females--with the male numbers gaining over the last census.

 

[sr71plt]

See, that's the thing... the way I see it, these women adopted a more realistic view of what a desirable man is.

Normally, guys are held to a divine standard of what an ideal mate is - in fact, we're nothing more than a cover for her insecurities. (We've gotta be older, taller, richer, smarter, stronger, etc.) She wants a taller/stronger guy because he can protect her. Richer, because he can provide for her. Older, because he's like her mythical dad. Etc etc.

All that changes when there are tons more women than men...

They're perfectly happy to consider men dumber, though, of course.

 

[KLCK]

Wouldnt a 3;1 male to female ratio be better? I mean women have three holes...

*laugh track*

No really, I look at China, a country were families are only allowed one child. Most of the time that child is male because the family wants to pass on teh family name so they sometimes bort the female babies. This has led to high suicide rates in china amongst men who cant find a mate. I think that with a 3;1 female to male ratio, there would be a lot of depressed wome unless society changed into polygamy or more women became bi/lez.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

See, that's the thing... the way I see it, these women adopted a more realistic view of what a desirable man is.

Normally, guys are held to a divine standard of what an ideal mate is - in fact, we're nothing more than a cover for her insecurities. (We've gotta be older, taller, richer, smarter, stronger, etc.) She wants a taller/stronger guy because he can protect her. Richer, because he can provide for her. Older, because he's like her mythical dad. Etc etc.

All that changes when there are tons more women than men...

I am not complaining. I particularly like the "older" status... never knew it was a desireable trait until I came to Russia.....



-KC