The People (Denver: military, work, medical)

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim

I appreciate your attempt to explain this demographic phenomenon, but what you're saying doesn't make sense. If old prejudices against girls are dying out, why would there be a DECREASE in the the percentage of females? By that logic, the % of females in the population of Denver should be even HIGHER than it was in 1990, and instead it is much lower.

it sort of makes sense if the idea is that families try (tried, and still try, e.g.) for a boy until they get one. with 50/50 chances of boy/girl, and the preference for boys results in stopping at the first boy born, this results in an average of 100 boys and 100 girls born to sets of 100 families trying for that single boy apiece, on average. but maybe i have livecontent's logic wrong... either way, if the ratio was greater than 100:100 at some point for some reason (though i do not think it could have been due to this strategy), this strategy WILL result in the ratio coming closer to 100:100 over generations (if the population just changes due to "conception", not other things like migration or non-50/50 odds of death), but not swinging to less than 100:100.

[Katiana]

The "natural" order of things is 105 boys for every 100 girls. Boys are actaully the "weaker sex", and it's about 100:100 at maturity. I think some families do keep trying for a boy, though I think most give up after, say, three or four at most. Some families get their boy and then try for a girl several times (this is anecdotal). I think there are more men than women here b/c of the outdoor "mantra" around here.

[livecontent]

I stand by what I have said. It is very simple--more, people want boys, they get a girl,
they try again, they get a girl, they try a again---a boy. Therefore more girls then boy.
If a boy is born then they tend to stop--which makes less girls. Most couples do not continue to try until they get a girl. A boy is always preferred. All societies have more girls, less boys.

That is changing in advanced western societies, as preference for boys is diminished and fewer children are preferred or encouraged by governments---so the sex production moves to even value. Again assuming no endogenesis effects or other factors that would favor boys over girls, or girls over boys--such as female infanticide, or sex selection abortion.

Pittnurse--I just do not understand what you mean by the "natural" order of a ratio of 105 boys to girls????? It that a medical term?? Boys are "weaker"???--is that not anecdotal???

Certainly warfare has accounted for more male deaths then females in some societies and at certain times in history. I can very well relate to that. I was a soldier stationed in Occupied Berlin, Germany. It was quite obvious that in the middle age groups 40-75 yrs. there were much more women then men----I was there in 1972-73. It was a city of older women made that way by death and destruction.

As I said I was taught that in those fancy B/S college courses, eh, maybe I am wrong, after all, I am just a male, the weaker sex.

Livecontent

[sorryville]

It kinda goes both ways in this modern era. I can think of 4 examples right off the top of my head. Here they are in order: My sister - 3 boys and finally a girl, my brother - 2 girls and finally a boy, my brother in law - 3 girls and they quit (although quite heart broke over no boy), two friends - 3 boys and they quit (although quite heart broke over no girl).

I remember hearing something before that the natural order is for more boys than girls. My personal theory is that men are more likely to be killed. Way back in caveman days they were the guardians, the hunters etc. Maybe now it's more likely because they are more "daring" or adventurous. Raising a little boy can be quite a bit different from raising a little girl. As teenagers or adults? I refer to it as "Hold my beer and watch this!" syndrome...

[st0ked1o1]

Originally Posted by DenverAztec

I know that sports were the driving force for two of my friends to move to Denver. Three major stadiums surronded by decent neighborhoods with many restaurants and clubs appeals to the sports lovers. Just a hunch, but all I know is the reason for two friends to relocate here in the last 10 years. It would not be the reason for me to personally move to a city but the appeal is different for everyone.

I am from Hawaii and we don't have any Professional Sports and it drives me nuts! I have to fly every year to go see a game somewhere on the Mainland. Denver is exactly where I want to go because of the sports, laid back people, weather, and the neighborhoods. I believe it would be a great place to raise a family. No ocean but I think I can get past that with the sports, concerts, and other feel good deals that Denver has to offer and Hawaii doesnt. To be honest Hawaii is ONLY good for people who enjoy the beach. You can't really do anything in the middle of the day except maybe a hike or the beach. Nightlife sucks too. No concerts ever, no professional sports, and its an island nothing to do but drink the night away.

[katysalsa]

I'm moving to Denver in a few weeks and I don't even know what a fourteener is. Is this bad? Who cares!

[pcollins22]

As far as biology is concerned, there is no genetic favorite between a boy and a girl at conception. It is by pure random combination of each parents' chromosomes during sexual meiosis as to which sex is produced.

[kristenfromdenver]

A Fourteener is a mountain over 14,000 ft. People here like to climb/hike them. It is usually an all day affair and in my opinion, requires a dip in a hot tub and an alcoholic beverage afterward to ease the aching muscles.

[flyingbuffalos]

Originally Posted by livecontent

Pittnurse--I just do not understand what you mean by the "natural" order of a ratio of 105 boys to girls????? It that a medical term?? Boys are "weaker"???--is that not anecdotal???

Deep breath, deep breath. There is a ratio of 105 males per 100 females. There is an even greater number of males conceived, but not all of these make it to term birth. So perhaps "weaker" is not the best term; how about "more vulnerable"?

For premature babies, the worst thing to be is a white male. Black females do the best. Don't know why, but it is true. Course, I still haven't figured out why fertility seems to be inversely proportional to socioeconomic status, or why cocaine seems to work better than Clomid. The universe is full of mysteries. I've spent 23 years in the NICU. And while there is no scientific evidence that the full moon brings more babies, or more sick babies, anecdotally, a lot of people believe this. Just as my colleagues and I seem to take turns with a "black cloud" which brings more admissions, more really sick babies or just really busy days.

All of this discussion of how many males and how many females is interesting, but numbers like this really don't give you any insight into how many of these are married, or in committed relationships, or gay or straight or disinterested.

Anyway, an interesting article on the birth ratio subject:
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_..._4_98/fob1.htm

flyingbuffalos

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by livecontent

I stand by what I have said. It is very simple--more, people want boys, they get a girl,
they try again, they get a girl, they try a again---a boy. Therefore more girls then boy.
If a boy is born then they tend to stop--which makes less girls. Most couples do not continue to try until they get a girl. A boy is always preferred. All societies have more girls, less boys.

That is changing in advanced western societies, as preference for boys is diminished and fewer children are preferred or encouraged by governments---so the sex production moves to even value. Again assuming no endogenesis effects or other factors that would favor boys over girls, or girls over boys--such as female infanticide, or sex selection abortion.

Pittnurse--I just do not understand what you mean by the "natural" order of a ratio of 105 boys to girls????? It that a medical term?? Boys are "weaker"???--is that not anecdotal???
Certainly warfare has accounted for more male deaths then females in some societies and at certain times in history. I can very well relate to that. I was a soldier stationed in Occupied Berlin, Germany. It was quite obvious that in the middle age groups 40-75 yrs. there were much more women then men----I was there in 1972-73. It was a city of older women made that way by death and destruction.

As I said I was taught that in those fancy B/S college courses, eh, maybe I am wrong, after all, I am just a male, the weaker sex.

Livecontent

The ratio of boys to girls at birth is 105:100. More boys die of natural and accidental causes. This ratio has stood the test of time. The numbers are solid epidemiological data.

It is true that many people will "try" till they get a boy. But, as I said, some (105 out of 205), get their boy first, and then keep "trying" for a girl till they have say, 2-3 boys and then a girl. Many people decide they are having a specific number of kids no matter what sex their kids are. Only child families are becoming more popular today, too.

Whoops! I see someone else just answered this question very well. I think I'll post it anyway.