"CHAOS"
Posted on 06/18/2011 2:26:32 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Since the late 1970s, 163 million female babies have been aborted by parents seeking sons.
BY JONATHAN V. LAST
Mara Hvistendahl is worried about girls. Not in any political, moral or cultural sense but as an existential matter. She is right to be. In China, India and numerous other countries (both developing and developed), there are many more men than women, the result of systematic campaigns against baby girls. In "Unnatural Selection," Ms. Hvistendahl reports on this gender imbalance...
(snip)
In nature, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This ratio is biologically ironclad.
(snip)
Yet today in India there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls. In China, the number is 121—though plenty of Chinese towns are over the 150 mark. China's and India's populations are mammoth enough that their outlying sex ratios have skewed the global average to a biologically impossible 107.
(snip)
What is causing the skewed ratio: abortion...by Ms. Hvistendahl's counting, there have been so many sex-selective abortions in the past three decades that 163 million girls, who by biological averages should have been born, are missing from the world. Moral horror aside, this is likely to be of very large consequence.
(snip)
...such imbalances are portents of Very Bad Things to come. "Historically, societies in which men substantially outnumber women are not nice places to live," she writes. "Often they are unstable. Sometimes they are violent."
(snip)
The economist Gary Becker has noted that when women become scarce, their value increases...But..."this assessment is true only in the crudest sense." A 17-year-old girl in a developing country is in no position to capture her own value. Instead, a young woman may well become chattel, providing income either for their families or for pimps.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Supposedly the Catholic church authorized polygamy as part of the solution to the social welfare disaster and you could have up to 15 wives if you could pay for them.
I’d be glad to debate the point, but seem to have trouble finding reliable statistics about historical sex ratios in different societies. Do you have references?
While I’m well aware American frontier societies were extremely lopsided to males, I’m not so sure this was true of the longer-settled areas.
Immigrants were always disproportionately male, and for obvious reasons not too many women were on the ever-moving frontier.
I disagree with your claim about women doing most of the work in the past. While true of most tribal societies, it is most definitely not true of most peasant societies, where everybody had to work all the time to stave off starvation and pay the landlord. The male serfs didn’t get to hang out on the corner. Male slaves through all history were always worked to the max. That’s the whole point of having slaves.
I also suggest your claim that all women were slaves is inaccurate. Sure, by our standards women had no rights and were little better than slaves. But the women of the time were well aware of the difference between honorable wife and mother and a female slave. Note the many, many examples of women killing their children and themselves rather than being taken captive to be enslaved. Jews, Gauls, Britons, Carthagnians, Germans, Rajputs, etc. Very long list.
muawiyah is misinformed and parroting pro-abortion nostrums about the danger of childbirth and also incorrect information about age of marriage and first birth.
If the death rate of women was higher than men, Nature (or Nature’s God) wouldn’t have resulted in the 105/100 ratio. The fact that the natural biological ratio is weighted towards men is indicative of who has the higher death rate through the ages.
Hunting is more dangerous than gathering. The most dangerous agricultural jobs were done by men, not women. Farming is still in the top five for occupational deaths.
Men also drink more, engage in more risk taking behaviors, gambling, fighting, racing, etc.
I’d be interested in seeing a reference.
My understanding is that women died during the 30 Years war (and most premodern wars) at nearly the same rate as men. The big killer was not battle, but epidemics, starvation and “foraging” by the armies. None of which discriminate between the sexes.
Read a recent article about the English Civil Wars, which were of course fought all over the British Isles. And which we don’t normally think of as particularly destructive.
Estimates population losses by country were: England - 10%, Scotland - 20%, Ireland - 30%.
Meanwhile, during our own civil war, the population grew from 31M in 1860 to 38M in 1870. To be fair, a good bit of that was immigration, but the population would still have grown with none.
"CHAOS"
One source has been Byzantine tax records ~ but notice that about the 6th century the whole world fell into a triple dip Great Recession like nobody's business. Every standard of civilization was abandoned. The recovery took a long time and even as late as 1790 a full census of the population (see Constitution) was considered quite revolutionary.
One population did manage to get its makeup put under the microscope ~ they were called Huns. When they left China, expelled by the Emperor himself for intense banditry and rapine, they were pretty much Chinese. By the time they got to Europe a couple of centuries later they were White folks.
This happened simply because females do best in settled life but these guys were migratory and continued raiding all across the continent until they reached Europe. This required them to obtain new females on a regular basis.
Found some statistics that in American colonial days 1% to 1.5% of all births resulted in maternal death. Since women had multiple births, as a rule, probably one in eight to one in ten women died in childbirth.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/childbirth.cfm
I’m not sure this rate was high enough to significantly outweigh the higher male death rate from war and accidents.
I think we get this impression because we have so many records of older widows marrying a succession of young wives. But the primary reason for this was that older, financially established men were prime catches in the marriage market and were quickly snapped up.
To discuss the issue, we first have to decide which type of society we’re going to discuss. American colonists had little in common with Russian peasants or medieval Egyptian peasants.
I’ve read a good bit about the Huns. The Romans and others of the time definitely viewed them as very different physically. Not “white folks” at all.
The Hungarians or Magyars and Bulgars and other steppe groups you are more or less correct.
As far as any of that being pro-abortion, it's not. Population statistics can certainly be misused to advocate for abortion, but you can use them to advocate for anything you want ~ like selling more bread, selling less meat, using fats, consuming sardines ~ you name it.
BTW, the conception ratios are exactly on the button.
Regarding early childbirth, that's always been a problem ~ everybody knows it. It's not an argument for abortion but rather a warning to the pedophiles to leave the young girls alone or you will be executed by the village elders faster than you can believe.
At the same time girls brought up under the rigors of heavy farm labor reach menses later ~ for what that's worth.
Your reference backward from lifestyle to birth ratios is BS. They are not linked and the higher level here is not universal. The world average is a 1:1 ratio ~ there are countries with more girls born than boys.
The adult ratio reflects conditions of life for each sex, on the average.
Now the relationship between Conservatives and Liberals is definitely skewed by actions taken at or before birth. Liberals kill their own kids at such a high rate that Conservatism in America is now demonstrably something that provides a family a biological advantage.
Armenia – 115:100
Azerbaijan – 114:100
Georgia – 113:100
India – 112:100
China – 111:100
Albania – 110:100
The United Kingdom and United States have a sex ratio of 105:100 while Canada has a sex ratio of 106:100.
The countries with the lowest proportion of males to females are...
Grenada and Liechtenstein – 100:100
Malawi and Barbados – 101:100
Some countries with very high proportions of males to females include...
United Arab Emirates – 274:100
Qatar – 218:100
Kuwait – 178:100
Oman – 140:100
Bahrain – 136:100
Saudi Arabia – 130:100
These oil-rich countries import many men to work and thus the ratio of males to females is highly disproportionate.
Let's say we have a population of 1000 men and 1000 women. If the men's death rate were 1% per annum, you'd lose 253 of those men in 30 years.
If the women's death rate is 2% per annum, you'd lose 443 of those women in 30 years.
Obviously you'd run out of women before you did men. But the principle is the same ~ as long as there's a difference in the death rates, particularly in the younger cohorts, you will eventually have an overbalance of one sex or the other. Currently our society has an overbalance of women. It used to have an overbalance of men. The only big change is we eliminated the maternal death rate for all practical purposes, and that was through the use of antibiotics.
Nations without widespread availability of antibiotics continue to have a high maternal death rate ~ and that prevails whether or not they use abortion for birth control. That's because abortions undertaken without the use of antibiotics have a high death rate.
The abortion rights crowd occasionally argues that abortion has eliminated maternal deaths YET we can look at the availability of antibiotics and their use is the cause for fewer women dying in childbirth.
It’s the nose ~ and the hair color. But I’ll guarantee you they had mostly hazel and yellow eyes.
The death rate at Jamestown in the early 1600s was INCREDIBLE. Almost everybody who came there for the first 20 years died shortly after arrival.
As you can see, the sex ratio at birth is higher to account for the higher death rate of males at all ages. Your claim is that women have the higher death rate.
Sex ratio: at birth: 1.07 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.07 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.02 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.79 male(s)/female
total population: 1.01 male(s)/female (2011 est.)
Definition: This entry includes the number of males for each female in five age groups - at birth, under 15 years, 15-64 years, 65 years and over, and for the total population. Sex ratio at birth has recently emerged as an indicator of certain kinds of sex discrimination in some countries. For instance, high sex ratios at birth in some Asian countries are now attributed to sex-selective abortion and infanticide due to a strong preference for sons. This will affect future marriage patterns and fertility patterns. Eventually, it could cause unrest among young adult males who are unable to find partners.
Source: CIA World Factbook - Unless otherwise noted, information in this page is accurate as of March 11, 2010 http://www.indexmundi.com/world/sex_ratio.html
Actually, 105 boys to 100 girls works very well as long ss you fight a war every five years or so to balance the overage of men.
Still, my Great grandmother, who was smothered, finally passed on at about the age 95 giving us one of histories longest smotherings.
The mothers killing the kids (to show their fidelity to their own standards and to protect their chilluns) is an old one ~ I think it didn't happen often.
Supposedly the Catholic church authorized polygamy as part of the solution to the social welfare disaster and you could have up to 15 wives if you could pay for them.OK, I thought I had seen every major calumny possible against the Church. Again, I was wrong.
Hey muawiyah - any chance you have ANY serious research to back up your claim?
Interesting. Where do you think the redheads came from?
Supposedly the Catholic church authorized polygamy as part of the solution to the social welfare disaster and you could have up to 15 wives if you could pay for them.
Also interesting. My wife would no doubt disapprove. Do you have evidence of this that I could present to her?
They'd do that Fur Shur.
However, a real quick reference at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-big-question-whats-the-history-of-polygamy-and-how-serious-a-problem-is-it-in-africa-1858858.html refers us to the Parliament at Nurmburg that allowed 10 women per man.
What you will want to look for is “PLURAL MARRIAGE” which seems to be the Politically Correct term for the more modern references.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.