World Gender Imbalance

[laurel love]

I read an interesting article on the continuing progression of gender imbalance in Asian and Eastern European countries.

Aside from the obvious repercussion of the difficulty for many 20 something men in finding a wife, they pointed out the fact that the sex trade in these countries has become much more active and lucrative. (Something about a couple of nations of randy young men who cannot find a woman to pick up in a bar for a freebie cause they are becoming more and more scarce.)

I wonder if that would eventually drive up the prices for escorts, and, I am talking about down the road perhaps 10-15 years.

I wonder if more women here would be traveling over there to make money and if men over there would be coming here in search of brides. (Of course, only the wealthy guys would be doing that.)

Everyone in the world seems to be having fewer children and the only people having a proper representative population of women would be N. America and W. Europe.

There was a note in the article about an Island off the coast of Thailand where families are extremely large (12-15 kids) and they make a great profit selling their daughters to desperate men. These Islanders are living very well with modern appliances and brand new furniture etc...

reminds me of an old song from Ireland in the 1800s:

"Step it up Mary my fine daughter show your legs to the County Man"

Well, the winds of change are blowing through the valley, and all that...

 

[uncleg]

Read something along those lines recently myself, though it mostly concerned China and India, nothing mentioned about Eastern Europe. I know that for a long time, women out numbered men because of WWII loses, especially in Russia. In China and India the imbalance is being blamed on a bias towards male children. Now that modern medicine makes it possible to determine sex before birth more families are aborting the females as opposed to killing them after they are born, or adopting them out.

Will this drive up the price of escorts, I doubt it. What it will do is drive up human trafficking. There is already a brisk trade in women from North Korea to China, something that is starting to get embarrassing for the Chinese Government. Watch for a clampdown in that market, but as the standard of living improves in China, watch for an increase in traffic from places like Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, Thailand and even the Philippines.

Let's face it, if the women could make a decent living in the sex trade in China or Asia in general, there wouldn't be so many working the micros and MP's here. About the only places the sex trade workers are making a living worth travelling for are in Hong Kong, Macau and in Japan.

 

[laurel love]

Very good points from both of you.

The author of the article I read was also surprised by the findings in Eastern Europe. I have snipped a comment from a site I looked into:

"Gender imbalance now stretches across much of Asia and into Eastern Europe. Far fewer girls than boys are born today in India, Taiwan, Vietnam, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, and Albania. Sex selection was also widespread in South Korea throughout the 1980s and 1990s. All told, there are over 160 million females missing from Asia's population--and untold more missing from Eastern Europe."

What I wondered was whether 10-15 years down the road the people who manage the trafficking would begin to charge more money for a disappearing commodity.

 

[Pirate Code]

The lack of women in these countries may perhaps eventually create an atmosphere where women are actually valued as much as men. How ironic would that be?

Let's hope it does, as the abortion of fetuses due solely to sex is repugnant and evil, imo.

 

[laurel love]

"Social Upheaval" was exactly what the article was contemplating. China has a very large population of cannon fodder...although, the way they are winning the economic 'war' they scarcely need to resort to actual "hands on" war.

There was a picture of a class room in China where almost all the children were boys. Imagine.

Concerning the abortion issue, I have wondered if it is kinder to abort girls instead of bringing them into a social system that abhors them.

 

[Tugela]

Read something along those lines recently myself, though it mostly concerned China and India, nothing mentioned about Eastern Europe. I know that for a long time, women out numbered men because of WWII loses, especially in Russia. In China and India the imbalance is being blamed on a bias towards male children. Now that modern medicine makes it possible to determine sex before birth more families are aborting the females as opposed to killing them after they are born, or adopting them out.

Hate to break it to ya, but WWII ended over 65 years ago. Most of the people alive then are now dead, only their children and grandchildren remain, and unless I'm missing something, WWII didn't do any kind of sexual selection in the next generation.

 

[Tugela]

For the most part, the girls are not abhorred, just an economic burden. Many of these societies do not have a social safety net so parents rely on their sons to support them in their old age. there is also often a dowry system where wealth come into a family with the marriage of sons but leaves as dowry to marry off a daughter. And of course, the carrying on of a family name.

Money goes to educate sons, who's future earnings will support the family. Daughters will be joining a different family so educating them is seen as a luxury. Without an education, women's earning potential is limited & thus they are perceived to have less value to a family. On the larger scale of the entire society, it is madness to do what is happening. But at the level of individual families with limited fiscal resources it can seem rational.

Except of course that many of those sons will not be able to find a wife, and therefore THEY will not have a safety net. In time the percieved value of daughters will change as cultural norms adapt to that realization.

 

[uncleg]

Hate to break it to ya, but WWII ended over 65 years ago. Most of the people alive then are now dead, only their children and grandchildren remain, and unless I'm missing something, WWII didn't do any kind of sexual selection in the next generation.

Aww Tug, I take it you're still a bit of a youngster. So let me explain something to you, WWII was fought mostly by MEN ( the sexual selection ) and they died in the millions. Most were young men, men that had they lived would have been fathers. They didn't and they weren't. While the average world birth rate is higher for males, 1.06 males/1 female, those .06 males don't add up all that quickly. The first generation after the war didn't exactly replace all the loses, not in Russia, Germany or in any part of Europe affected by the War. In fact I'd say that they still haven't been replaced, nor has the birthrate compensated for the potential of those loses.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

I can recall reading somewhere that historically when a society has a surplus of young males, the result is more crime, violence and social upheaval. Scary to think about, especially when you consider China.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Aww Tug, I take it you're still a bit of a youngster. So let me explain something to you, WWII was fought mostly by MEN ( the sexual selection ) and they died in the millions. Most were young men, men that had they lived would have been fathers. They didn't and they weren't. While the average world birth rate is higher for males, 1.06 males/1 female, those .06 males don't add up all that quickly. The first generation after the war didn't exactly replace all the loses, not in Russia, Germany or in any part of Europe affected by the War. In fact I'd say that they still haven't been replaced, nor has the birthrate compensated for the potential of those loses.

i heard birth rates actually went up during both WWI and WWII despite the loss of male breeding stock

 

[uncleg]

i heard birth rates actually went up during both WWI and WWII despite the loss of male breeding stock

Not much of a spurt after WWI, but a major Bay Boom after WWII, in particular in the U.S., hence the "Baby Boomers" Not so much in Europe, because nobody could afford it. Most of the countries were reduced to rubble. Remember, 2.5% of the world's population was killed during that time span, most of it in Europe and Russia.

 

[wet_suit_one]

Some days, I just despise our species. Other days, I just despise men. Other days, amazingly enough, it's women.

Other days, I just forget it all and smile. This is not one of those days...

Sigh...

 

[ripplechip]

Not much of a spurt after WWI, but a major Bay Boom after WWII, in particular in the U.S., hence the "Baby Boomers" Not so much in Europe, because nobody could afford it. Most of the countries were reduced to rubble. Remember, 2.5% of the world's population was killed during that time span, most of it in Europe and Russia.

WW2 is different, as is any war after it.

The baby boom happened in Americas because we got rich off of the war and got off pretty easy as far as deaths went. The female population here was also unaffected.

American bombs and German furnaces didn't care much about gender. After that most countries (especially those in Europe) lost their taste for a good old war.

The States was never on the receiving end of a strategic bombing campaign so not only were they not reduced to rubble and suffer massive civilian casualties but no one in America really understands just how indiscriminate a modern war is. Even Europe is starting to forget.

Japan is perpetually shell shocked though, will be a long time before they can stomach another fight.

Modern war = EVERYONE DIES... except the soldiers, they just sit in a chair and push a button. Look at Iraq, the second the soldiers think they might be in for a stand up fight they just call in the Apaches or F/A-18's which don't particularly care what age/gender you are.


I guess what I am saying is that having a war to cull the male population doesn't work anymore. China knows this and is just going to have to ride out the civil unrest.

 

[Devo]

WW2 is different, as is any war after it.

The baby boom happened in Americas because we got rich off of the war and got off pretty easy as far as deaths went. The female population here was also unaffected.

American bombs and German furnaces didn't care much about gender. After that most countries (especially those in Europe) lost their taste for a good old war.

The States was never on the receiving end of a strategic bombing campaign so not only were they not reduced to rubble and suffer massive civilian casualties but no one in America really understands just how indiscriminate a modern war is. Even Europe is starting to forget.

Japan is perpetually shell shocked though, will be a long time before they can stomach another fight.

Modern war = EVERYONE DIES... except the soldiers, they just sit in a chair and push a button. Look at Iraq, the second the soldiers think they might be in for a stand up fight they just call in the Apaches or F/A-18's which don't particularly care what age/gender you are.


I guess what I am saying is that having a war to cull the male population doesn't work anymore. China knows this and is just going to have to ride out the civil unrest.

A good old fashioned ground war between India and China would do the trick. I am surprised that the leaders of these 2 countries haven't gotten together and made it happen by now.