Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to current demographic data, it looks like the current global sex ratio is 1.018 males per 1 female. I'm not sure what year the ratio tipped over 1:1 M/F, but when it did, it was likely the first time that has happened, at least for a long long time. There's been instances of males outnumbering females in certain locations, but I think this is the first time it's happened globally.
The reason for this is great news, men are no longer dying in work accidents or war at nearly the rates they used to in the past. This can be seen as the progress humanity has been able to make over the last 60 years. It appears that naturally there are slightly more men born than women, estimated to be around 1.05.
What do you all think the implications of this will be? For most of recorded human history, females have outnumbered males and that has undoubtedly been part of the shaping factors of cultures around the world, and now this has shifted the other way.
It certainly doesn't put them on a pedestal judging from history. In Jamestown there were very few women. One of the first women to live there, known to history as "Jane" was eaten. It is believed that she died a natural death if starvation could be called natural and was then professionally butchered judging from the way the knife marks were made. There was another case later where a man killed and salted his wife:
"One amongst the rest did kill his wife, powdered her, and had eaten part of her before it was known, for which he was executed, as he well deserved" Captain John Smith
Since biologically, women tend to dominate - that is, more survive - it may also be due to the parental preference for males, with female babies being killed off or aborted.
Given that men tend to be more aggressive, more warlike, more reckless, I'm not sure why you consider this a good thing. And, actually, no, women have not had a major role in shaping most of history.
Per Wikipedia, the lowest ratio of men to women is in Djibouti, which clocks in at 0.83. Then Hong Kong, then Russia and several other post-Soviet states.
On the other side is Qatar, with a ratio of 3.39. It should be noted that most of the population of Qatar are not Qataris but foreign workers. Interestingly, the next few are all Gulf states. The Northern Marianas Islands (a U.S. commonwealth). Interestingly, a bunch of other island territories - Guam, the Faroes, the Falklands, and others - are among the higher ratios as well.
Much of this is due to the trend in the world's 2 most populous countries, CHINA and INDIA to practice selective abortion. Girl babies are not wanted in traditional societies there because their parents will eventually have to pay dowries when they marry. And the wives according to tradition will eventually be caregivers to their aged in-laws (husband's parents) rather than to their own aged parents. So, girl fetuses are either aborted to begin with, or else in poor peasant families, girl babies are given less attention, less food and medical care than boy babies, so that fewer survive into adulthood.
As a result, there is a HUGE shortage of young eligible women......so that millions of young men (especially the poor, uneducated peasants who are undesirable, poor prospects) must remain celibate, or else try to import brides from southeast Asia despite the language barrier, and then hold them captive so that their homesick, foreign brides don't sneak back to their home country.
Last edited by slowlane3; 09-22-2020 at 09:27 PM..
An excess of young, horny men — the recipe for war.
Not at all.
In the first place, the ratio of men-to-women has changed very little, from a bit more women to a bit more men.
Second of all, young men - regardless of their degree of sexual desire - don't have much to do with decisions on war. Such decisions are made by much older politicians (men, mostly, though less so than in the past as the number of women in the decision-making process continues to increase). And to the extent that such policies reflect the will of the public, men vote at a somewhat lower rate than women (going back to the mid-90s, 4-7% lower in presidential years, 1-4% lower in midterms), while the 18-29 demographic (ie, young voters) has only approached the 50% threshold once (2008) and is usually significantly lower (though there seems to be a recent trend upward - after never getting much at all above 20% in midterms, in 2018 that group broached 30%).
And that's aside from the questionable validity of the "I'm not getting enough sex so let's invade Venezuela!" thesis of attitudes among young men.
Since biologically, women tend to dominate - that is, more survive - it may also be due to the parental preference for males, with female babies being killed off or aborted.
Given that men tend to be more aggressive, more warlike, more reckless, I'm not sure why you consider this a good thing. And, actually, no, women have not had a major role in shaping most of history.
It's a good thing cause less people are dying, that seems to be pretty objectively good to me. Men have a tendency to be more warlike and aggressive, but clearly there's less war and aggression nowdays, and that's why more are around in the 21st century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowlane3
Much of this is due to the trend in the world's 2 most populous countries, CHINA and INDIA to practice selective abortion. Girl babies are not wanted in traditional societies there because their parents will eventually have to pay dowries when they marry. And the wives according to tradition will eventually be caregivers to their aged in-laws (husband's parents) rather than to their own aged parents. So, girl fetuses are either aborted to begin with, or else in poor peasant families, girl babies are given less attention, less food and medical care than boy babies, so that fewer survive into adulthood.
As a result, there is a HUGE shortage of young eligible women......so that millions of young men (especially the poor, uneducated peasants who are undesirable, poor prospects) must remain celibate, or else try to import brides from southeast Asia despite the language barrier, and then hold them captive so that their homesick, foreign brides don't sneak back to their home country.
That's true is some places that's a factor, but even putting that aside, it appears that naturally, there's just more men born. Gender selection at birth is not the dominant factor in this trend worldwide. And of the nations that have abnormally skewed female ratios, it's mainly in the older segment of the population pyramid, not the millennial and under range, so that will change soon enough.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
